Case Law

1. Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access. 2. Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU 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: precluding national legislation under which the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion. 3. Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Exclusion clauses - International protection - National security / Public order - Statelessness | Countries: Hungary

1. This decision considers whether the appellant should be excluded from the protection of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Convention’) because there are serious reasons for considering that he committed crimes against humanity (Article 1F(a)) or in the alternative a serious non-political crime (Article 1F(b)) during his service in the Police d’Intervention Rapide (PIR) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

9 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Crimes against humanity - Exclusion clauses - International criminal law - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

16 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

6 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

1. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) 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, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has ceased, it is necessary to take into account, as part of an individual assessment of all the relevant factors of the situation in question, all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein. 2. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that UNRWA’s protection or assistance cannot be regarded as having ceased where a stateless person of Palestinian origin left the UNRWA area of operations from a field in that area in which his or her personal safety was at serious risk and in which UNRWA was not in a position to provide that individual with protection or assistance, first, if that individual voluntarily travelled to that field from another field in that area in which his or her personal safety was not at serious risk and in which he or she could receive protection or assistance from UNRWA and, secondly, if he or she could not reasonably expect, on the basis of the specific information available to him or her, to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA in the field to which he or she travelled or to be able to return at short notice to the field from which he or she came, which is for the national court to verify.

13 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering that the appellant “has committed a serious non-political crime outside [New Zealand] prior to his admission to [New Zealand] as a refugee” because any crime he committed was of a political kind. [125] Accordingly, the appellant is not excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F(b) of that Convention.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime - Trafficking in persons | Countries: China - Korea, Democratic People's Republic of - Korea, Republic of - New Zealand

The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”).

28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of

Une autorité nationale compétente peut-elle se fonder sur les dispositions prévues à l’article 19 de la directive 2011/95/UE (2) afin de procéder à la révocation du statut conféré par la protection subsidiaire à un apatride, et ce en raison d’une appréciation erronée des besoins de protection internationale dont elle est seule responsable ?

24 January 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Exclusion clauses - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria