Case C-402/22, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Particularly serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v M.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, international protection, offence, penalty, principle of proportionality, public safety, refugee








C_2023296EN.01001002.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/10






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v M.A.
(Case C-402/22, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Particularly serious crime)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 14(4)(b) - Revocation of refugee status - Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime - Danger to the community - Proportionality test)
(2023/C 296/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendant: M.A.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 meaning that a crime which, in view of its specific features, is exceptionally serious, in so far as it is one of the crimes which most seriously undermine the legal order of the community concerned, constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision. In order to assess whether a crime for which a third-country national has been convicted by a final judgment has such a degree of seriousness, account must be taken, inter alia, of the penalty provided for and the penalty imposed for that crime, the nature of that crime, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, whether or not that crime was intentional, the nature and extent of the harm caused by that crime and the procedure used to punish it.










2.


Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime.










3.


Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat.






(1)  OJ C 368, 26.9.2022.