Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl.
Date: 2019-05-23
33


However, according to settled case-law of the Court, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 28 March 2019, Idi, C‑101/18, EU:C:2019:267, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
35


Having clarified that point, it must be stated, in the first place, that since Directive 2011/95 was adopted on the basis, in particular, of Article 78(2)(b) TFEU, it seeks, inter alia, to establish a uniform subsidiary protection system (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 July 2018, Alheto, C‑585/16, EU:C:2018:584, paragraph 88). It is, moreover, apparent from recital 12 of that directive that one of its main objectives is to ensure that all Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection (judgments of 13 September 2018, Ahmed, C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 37, and of 14 May 2019, M and Others (Revocation of refugee status), C‑391/16, C‑77/17 and C‑78/17, EU:C:2019:403, paragraph 79).
36


In that regard, it is apparent from Article 18 of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with the definition of ‘person eligible for subsidiary protection’ in Article 2(f) thereof, and that of ‘subsidiary protection status’ in Article 2(g) thereof, that the subsidiary protection status referred to in that directive must, in principle, be granted to a third-country national or stateless person who faces a real risk of suffering serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of that directive, if returned to his country of origin or to the country of his former habitual residence (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2018, Ahmedbekova, C‑652/16, EU:C:2018:801, paragraph 47).
37


By contrast, Directive 2011/95 does not provide for the granting of subsidiary protection status to third-country nationals or stateless persons other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2018, Ahmedbekova, C‑652/16, EU:C:2018:801, paragraph 48).
44


In that regard, it should be noted, first, that the Court has already held that it would be contrary to the general scheme and objectives of Directive 2011/95 to grant refugee status and subsidiary protection status to third-country nationals in situations which have no connection with the rationale of international protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 December 2014, M’Bodj, C‑542/13, EU:C:2014:2452, paragraph 44). The situation of an individual who has obtained subsidiary protection status on the basis of incorrect information without ever having met the conditions for obtaining that status has no connection with the rationale of international protection.
45


The loss of subsidiary protection status in such circumstances is, therefore, consistent with the purpose and general scheme of Directive 2011/95, and in particular with Article 18 thereof, which provides for subsidiary protection status to be granted only to persons who meet those conditions. If the Member State concerned was not entitled legally to grant that status, it must, a fortiori, be obliged to withdraw it when its mistake is discovered (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2015, H. T., C‑373/13, EU:C:2015:413, paragraph 49).
48


It follows, therefore, from the actual wording of Article 19(1) of Directive 2011/95 that there is a causal connection between the change in circumstances referred to in Article 16 of that directive, and the impossibility for the person concerned of retaining his status as beneficiary of subsidiary protection, in that his original fear of serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of that directive, no longer appears to be well founded (see, by analogy, judgment of 2 March 2010, Salahadin Abdulla and Others, C‑175/08, C‑176/08, C‑178/08 and C‑179/08, EU:C:2010:105, paragraph 66).
54


In that regard, it is apparent from Article 78(1) TFEU that the common policy which the European Union is to develop on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention (judgment of 13 September 2018, Ahmed, C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 37). In addition, it follows from recital 3 of Directive 2011/95 that, drawing on the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council, the EU legislature intended to ensure that the European asylum system, to whose definition that directive contributes, is based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention (judgment of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso, C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraph 30).
55


Those considerations are, in principle, relevant only in relation to the conditions for determining who qualifies for refugee status and the content of that status, since the system laid down by the Geneva Convention applies only to refugees and not to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. Nevertheless, recitals 8, 9 and 39 of Directive 2011/95 state that the EU legislature intended, in responding to the call of the Stockholm Programme, to establish a uniform status for all beneficiaries of international protection and that it accordingly chose to afford beneficiaries of subsidiary protection the same rights and benefits as those enjoyed by beneficiaries of refugee status, with the exception of derogations which are necessary and objectively justified (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso, C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraphs 31 and 32).
57


It follows from this that the requirements arising under the Geneva Convention must be taken into account for the purpose of interpreting Article 19 of Directive 2011/95. In that context, documents from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are particularly relevant in the light of the role conferred on the UNHCR by the Geneva Convention (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 May 2013, Halaf, C‑528/11, EU:C:2013:342, paragraph 44).
59


It must be added, in the fifth place, that the loss of subsidiary protection status, pursuant to Article 19(1) of Directive 2011/95, does not imply the adoption of a position on the separate question as to whether the person concerned loses any right of residence in the Member State concerned and can be deported to his country of origin (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 November 2010, B and D, C‑57/09 and C‑101/09, EU:C:2010:661, paragraph 110).
61


Second, it is clear from the closing words of Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95 that the directive does not preclude a person from applying for ‘another kind of protection’ outside the scope of Directive 2011/95. That directive does allow, therefore, for host Member States to be able to grant, in accordance with their national law, national protection which includes rights enabling individuals who do not enjoy subsidiary protection status to remain in the territory of the Member State concerned. The grant by a Member State of such national protection status does not, however, fall within the scope of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 November 2010, B and D, C‑57/09 and C‑101/09, EU:C:2010:661, paragraphs 116 to 118).