Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

M. and X. X. – Joined cases C-391/16, C77/17, C78/17 The judgment concerns applicants who had been convicted of serious crimes in Belgium and the Czech Republic. CJEU ruled, that EU Member States cannot deport refugees who have committed crimes if they will face inhuman or degrading treatment upon return. Instead, Member States must allow them to remain in the country. The CJEU recognised that the Geneva Convention permits states to derogate from the principle of non-refoulement in cases in which a refugee has committed a serious crime and presents a threat to the nation, or if the refugee presents a serious threat to society . However, the EU law must conform with the European Charter on Fundamental Rights, which prohibits exposure to torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Member States cannot return refugees to their home countries if there was a possibility that they would face such treatment. Bilali, C-720/17 The case concerns the interpretation of Article 19 of the QD in the revocation of subsidiary protection status. The applicant requested asylum in Austria in 2009, submitting he was stateless, and was granted subsidiary protection status in 2010 with the assumption that he was probably Algerian. In 2012, the Federal Asylum Office revoked the status on factual grounds that emerged upon further investigation. The CJEU 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. The CJEU stated that if the Member State concerned was not entitled to grant that status, it must, a fortiori, be obliged to withdraw it when its mistake is discovered. Ahmed, C-369/17 The case deals with the serious crime concept and subsidiary protection. The CJEU held that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could result in a person being excluded from the benefit of subsidiary protection. This assessment shall consist of a full investigation into the circumstances of the individual case in question and cannot be taken automatically. By applying, by analogy, its own case law on exclusion from refugee status to this subsidiary protection case, the CJEU has contributed to further aligning refugee and subsidiary protection in the direction of a single international protection status. Ayubi, C-713/17 The case deals with the level of social security benefits paid to refugees by the Member State which granted that status, whether temporary or permanent, which must be the same as that offered to nationals of that Member State. The CJEU stressed that Article 23 of the Geneva Convention also requires States to provide to refugees the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals. The CJEU stated that EU law precludes national legislation, which provides that refugees with a temporary right of residence in a Member State are to be granted social security benefits which are less than those received by nationals of that Member State and refugees who have a permanent right of residence in that Member State. A refugee may rely on this incompatibility of legislation with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts.

100