CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

HARALD CHRISTIAN SCHEU CYIL 11 (2020) In the section below, we want to focus on some unclarities related to the interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement under Article 19(2) of the EUCFR and under Article 21(2) of the Qualification Directive, 10 which provides Member States with the opportunity to refoule a refugee, whether formally recognized or not, when there are reasonable grounds for considering him or her as a danger to the security of the Member State in which he or she is present (litera a) or he or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitute a danger to the community of that Member State (litera b). In Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17 of 14 May 2019, 11 the CJEU used the occasion to define the scope of the principle of non-refoulement in EU law. 4. The relationship between the Geneva Convention and the Union’s protection of fundamental rights In this particular judgment, the CJEU gave the answers to three questions. Two of them had been referred to the Court by the Belgian Council for Asylum and Immigration Proceedings ( Conseil du contentieux des étrangers ) and the third one by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. In all cases, the national authorities had to apply national rules implementing the Qualification Directive in their domestic law. One of the most problematic provisions of the Qualification Directive is its Article 14(4). 12 In transposing this provision into Czech law, Section 17(1) of the Czech Asylum Law 13 stipulates that asylum is revoked if there are legitimate reasons to consider the asylum seeker a danger to state security or if the asylum seeker has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and therefore represents a danger to the security of the State. A similar regulation is contained in the Belgian Law on access to the territory, residence, establishment, and removal of foreign national. 14 Based upon Section 17(1) of Czech Asylum Law, the competent authority in April 2014 decided to revoke the asylum status of a Russian citizen of Chechen nationality who had committed a robbery before being granted asylum and had been sentenced to three years‘ imprisonment. After having been granted asylum, the person was sentenced again for robbery and extortion, this time to nine years‘ imprisonment. In the first Belgian case, the competent authorities refused to grant refugee status to a Côte d‘Ivoire citizen who first had been imposed a partly suspended custodial sentence of 30 months for intentional assault and battery, possession of a bladed weapon without proper reason and possession of a prohibited weapon, and one and a half year later to four years’ imprisonment for rape of a minor. The second Belgian case involved a Congolese citizen who after having been sentenced to 25 10 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 . 11 M v Ministerstvo vnitra (C-391/16), X (C-77/17) a X (C-78/17) v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides. 12 Article 14(4) of the Qualification Directive provides that the refugee status may be revoked, ended or refused to be renewed when there are reasonable grounds for regarding the person concerned as a danger to the security of the Member State or the person, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that Member State. 13 Act No. 325/1999 Coll., On Asylum. 14 Loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers.

186