CJEU - P.I. v Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos, Case C-280/21, 12/01/2023

Facts:

P.I. applied for asylum, claiming that he had been persecuted in his country of origin. He had entered a business deal with an individual connected to the government and paid a substantial sum, but the contract was not performed. He subsequently faced criminal proceedings initiated by the other party, resulting in loss of control of his project. Those criminal proceedings were allegedly suspended but were reopened after P.I. attempted to bring an action challenging the illegal appropriation of his project, resulting in his conviction.

His asylum application was rejected by the Migration Department, as they deemed that his circumstances were not covered by the Geneva Convention, particularly the provision regarding ‘political opinion’. P.I. challenged the rejection, arguing that his persecution was not related to traditional political activity but stemmed from his active resistance against a corrupt group that illegally influenced the State. He contended that this resistance should be considered as ‘attributed political opinions’ under Article 10 of Directive 2011/95, further clarifying that the criminal charges against him were a civil dispute over material assets between economic operators.

The referring Court acknowledged P.I.’s consistent claims that businessmen with ties to state powers through corruption had seized his assets and that the criminal proceedings were initiated to intimidate him in response to his opposition to their actions. The Court noted that under national asylum legislation, prosecution or criminal penalties can constitute persecution if disproportionate and discriminatory.

As a result, the Court sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on whether opposition to an illegally operating and corruptly influential group, against which mounting a legal defence is impossible due to extensive state corruption, qualifies as ‘attributed political opinion’ under Article 10 of the Qualification Directive and for the purposes of international protection.

Decision & reasoning:

The Court ruled that attempts by asylum seekers to defend their interests against non-State actors exploiting corrupt connections with the State can constitute ‘political opinion’ if perceived as opposition or resistance by the actors of persecution.

The Court analysed the Qualification Directive which aims to establish common criteria for identifying individuals in need of international protection, in accordance with the Geneva Convention and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It emphasised the need for broad interpretation of the concept of ‘political opinion’, noting that interpretation should encompass not only explicit political opinions but also beliefs & actions related to matters perceived as political by the actors of persecution.

In reference to case law from the ECHR, which supports a broad understanding of freedom of expression, especially in matters of public interest such as corruption, the CJEU highlighted that discussing corruption in public affairs contributes to political debate and is thus protected under freedom of expression.

Outcome:

Article 10(1)(e) and (2) 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 the concept of ‘political opinion’ includes attempts by an applicant for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(h) and (i) of that directive, to defend his personal material and economic interests by legal means against non-State actors acting illegally, where those actors, on account of their connections with the State via corruption, are in a position to exploit, to the applicant’s detriment, the mechanism by which that State imposes penalties for criminal offences, in so far as those attempts are perceived by the actors of persecution as opposition or resistance as part of a matter related to those actors or their policies and/or methods.

Observations/comments:

This summary was written by Rachel Murphy, student at the Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic of the University of Gent.

Other sources:

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention), 28 July 1951, Article 1(A)(2)