full screen background image

Events

21 September 2017 - October 5 & 6, 2017: ‘International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict’ Colloquium on ‘International Inve ... +++ 21 September 2017 - 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: ... +++ 29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++

*Law of Aliens

Published on July 8th, 2018 | by Georgia Archonti

0

Advocate General’s Opinion in Joined Cases C-391/16 M v Ministerstvo vnitra, C-77/17 and C-78/17 X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, 21 June 2018

On 21 June 2018, Advocate General Wathelet gave his Opinion in the joined cases of C-391/16 M v Ministerstvo vnitraC-77/17 and C-78/17 X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides. The questions referred by the respective national courts concerned the interpretation of Article 14(4), (5) and (6) of the Qualification Directive and its conformity with the 1951 Refugee Convention. In sum, the national courts asked whether the aforementioned clauses of the Qualification Directive create new grounds for refusal [Article 14(5)] and withdrawal [Article 14(4)] of refugee status due to “danger to the security of the Member State” or previous conviction for a serious crime, which are not explicitly laid down in the 1951 Refugee Convention and, thus, whether they are invalid under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

According to the AG, Articles 14(4)-(6) are open to an interpretation in which it can be concluded that they are in compliance with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) TFEU. The AG’s conclusion in this respect is based on several main points.

First, unlike the application of a ground for cessation or exclusion, Articles 14(4) and (5) do not have the consequence of depriving the individual concerned of the ‘quality of refugee’. According to the AG, it is apparent from the text, objectives and overall scheme of that directive that qualifying as a refugee, on the one hand, and having refugee status or having refugee status withdrawn, on the other hand, are two distinct concepts.

For further information click here





About the Author


Back to Top ↑