Case C-159/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — GM v Országos Idegenrendézeti Főigazgatóság, Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, Terrorelhárítási Központ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common asylum and immigration policy — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Withdrawal of the status — Directive 2013/32/EU — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Danger to national security — Position taken by a specialist authority — Access to the file)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, asylum seeker, general legal principle, public safety, refugee, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2022424EN.01001001.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/10






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — GM v Országos Idegenrendézeti Főigazgatóság, Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, Terrorelhárítási Központ
(Case C-159/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common asylum and immigration policy - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Withdrawal of the status - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Danger to national security - Position taken by a specialist authority - Access to the file)
(2022/C 424/10)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GM

Defendants: Országos Idegenrendézeti Főigazgatóság, Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, Terrorelhárítási Központ

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter,
must be interpreted as:
precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access.










2.


Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted,
must be interpreted as:
precluding national legislation under which the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion.










3.


Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95
must be interpreted as:
not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.