HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

if the effects of climate change increase and put their lives in danger or subject them to cruel or inhuman treatment by their deportation. As a result, States would be subject to the non-refoulement responsibilities. While there was no violation in the particular case, the decision is a severe warning to states and the global community at large, urging them to support countries negatively impacted by climate change by providing “affirmative measures. 66 This suggests that “as climate impacts worsen, future similar claims are more likely to succeed”. 67 5. CJEU’s Interpretation of Serious Harm in Subsidiary Protection 5.1 C-542/13 – M’Bodj 68 The CJEU interpreted the term “serious harm” as outlined in Article 15 of the Qualification Directive. It has notably impacted how subsidiary protection is viewed in the legal context in its landmark judgment C-542/13 M’Bodj. The case concerned Mr M’Bodj, a Mauritanian national, who sought asylum in Belgium due to severe health issues. Nevertheless, his asylum application was denied, and he was granted residency due to a lack of access to appropriate medical care in his native country. After receiving the residency, he applied for a loss of income allowance and financial support. However, his request was refused on the grounds of nationality requirements. 69 Mr M’Bodj challenged the decision in court, referring the case from the Belgium Constitutional Court to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The question to decide was whether social welfare and healthcare benefits under the Qualification Directive should extend to individuals granted residence on health grounds, similar to those with subsidiary protection status. The CJEU’s judgment focused on interpreting “serious harm” under the Directive, which is crucial for defining eligibility for subsidiary protection and related benefits. 70 The CJEU emphasized that mere health risks faced by individuals from countries due to lack of medical care in their home nation do not meet the “serious harm” threshold under Article 15 unless such harm stems specifically from intentional denial of healthcare. 71 This interpretation highlights the need for a deliberate causing of harm or a clear risk of harm rather than harm resulting from systemic deficiencies. 66 United Nations Human Rights Committee, para. 9.14. 67 CULLEN, M. The UN Human Rights Committee’s Recent Decision on Climate Displacement. In Asylum Insight [online]. February 2020 [cit. 2024-06-20]. Available at: https://www.asyluminsight.com/c miriam-cullen. 68 Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) C-542/13 M’Bodj from 18 December 2014 [online]. ECLI:EU:C:2014:2452 [cit. 2024-06-15]. Available at: https://eur lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62013CJ0542.

69 Ibid., para. 16–24. 70 Ibid., para. 19–25. 71 Ibid., para. 32–36.

86