Case summaries
Exclusion from refugee protection on the grounds of "serious non-political crime" or of "acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations", cannot solely be based on the fact that an applicant has been a supporter or a member of an organisation which has been classified as terrorist. There must be serious reasons to justify the assumption that the applicant was personally involved in the commission of such crimes.
Exclusion from refugee status of an Applicant who had carried out attacks against the Sri Lankan army in the name of the LTTE, a movement included on the list of terrorist organisations as decided by the Council of the EU, during peace-time, with full knowledge, without coercion and when he was over the age of majority.
This case concerned the revocation of asylum and refugee status in the case of a former official of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (following the European Court of Justice case of Federal Republic of Germany v B (C-57/09) and D (C-101/09), 09 November 2010).
This Case concluded that membership of a terrorist organisation is not in itself a sufficient ground for exclusion from refugee status.
The Court considered how to assess whether an applicant’s activities for insurgent groups in Afghanistan could constitute terrorism. It further considered whether attacks upon United Nations Security Council mandated forces, such as ISAF in Afghanistan, were acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, justifying exclusion from the 1951 Refugee Convention under Article 1F(c).
The exclusion ground “serious non-political crime” does not automatically apply to a supporter of the PKK. In contrast, an examination of the individual responsibility has to be carried out in each case.
These joined cases concerned two Applicants who were denied protection in Germany on the basis of the exclusion provisions in the Qualification Directive. Upon appeal the German Courts found that even if they were excluded under the Qualification Directive they may still entitled to the right of asylum recognised under Article 16A of the Grundgesetz. The CJEU, in examining Article 12, the exclusion provision in the Qualification Directive, found that the fact a person was a member of an organisation which is on the EU Common Position List 2001/931/CFSP due to its involvement in terrorist acts, does not automatically constitute a serious reason to exclude that person. Exclusion is not conditional on the person concerned representing a present danger to the host Member State or on an assessment of proportionality.
- An individual is not excluded from refugee status where they have been convicted and sentenced as a juvenile, this only applies in cases of convictions and sentences according to the criminal law applicable to adults.
- The applicant is not excluded from refugee status because of publicly distributing portraits of Öcalan (founder of the PKK) as a youth. This cannot be considered as an act of supporting terrorism within the meaning of the exclusion ground of Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive.
The applicant lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High National Court to refuse granting refugee status. The refusal was founded on the application of an exclusion clause. It was held that the applicant constituted a danger to Spanish security. This decision examined the conditions required to apply this exclusion clause, namely that it has to be determined that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that such danger exists.
Even if an asylum applicant meets the conditions for provding subsidiary protection, he will be excluded from eligibility for subsidiary protection if there are serious grounds for believing that he represents a danger to society or a danger to the Member State in which he is staying.
It follows from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that signatory states to the Convention (Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) are under an obligation not to hand over/deport a person to a country where he might be at risk of treatment which is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In the case in question, however, the subject of the judicial review was not the decision to deport the Appellant, but the Respondent’s decision not to grant asylum and not to provide subsidiary protection as requested by the Appellant.