According to the EASO Courts and Tribunals Compilation of jurisprudence on Exclusion Articles 12 and 17 Qualification Directive, second edition 2020:

B entered Germany at the end of 2002, where he applied for asylum and for protection as a refugee and, in the alternative, for an order prohibiting his deportation to Turkey, on the basis that he had been a sympathiser of Dev Sol (now DHKP/C) and he had supported armed guerrilla warfare in the mountains. In 2004, the Bundesamt (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees) rejected B’s application for asylum as unfounded, since B had committed serious non-political crimes, and held that there were no obstacles to B’s deportation to Turkey under the applicable law. In 2006, that decision was annulled by the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Administrative Court, Gelsenkirchen), which ordered that authority to grant B asylum and to declare that his deportation to Turkey was prohibited. On appeal, the Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) found, in particular, that the exclusion clause relied upon by the Bundesamt must be understood to the effect that it does not seek only to punish a serious non-political crime committed in the past, but also to forestall the danger which the applicant could pose to the host Member State, and that the application of that clause requires an overall assessment of the particular case in the light of the principle of proportionality. D had resided in Germany since 2001 and applied for asylum, stating, inter alia, that, in 1990, he had fled to the mountains where he joined the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] and had been a guerrilla fighter for the PKK and one of its senior officials. He was granted asylum and refugee status under the national law in force at that time, but the Bundesamt initiated a revocation procedure and, by May 2004, it revoked the decision. The Bundesamt found that there were serious reasons for considering that D had committed a serious non-political crime outside Germany before being admitted to its territory as a refugee and that he had been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The court ruled that:

1. Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC must be interpreted as meaning that:

• the fact that a person has been a member of an organisation which, because of its involvement in terrorist acts, is on the list forming the Annex to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and that that person has actively supported the armed struggle waged by that organisation does not automatically constitute a serious reason for considering that that person has committed ‘a serious non-political crime’ or ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’;

• the finding, in such a context, that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has committed such a crime or has been guilty of such acts is conditional on an assessment on a caseby-case basis of the specific facts, with a view to determining whether the acts committed by the organisation concerned meet the conditions laid down in those provisions and whether individual responsibility for carrying out those acts can be attributed to the person concerned, regard being had to the standard of proof required under Article 12(2) of the directive.

2. Exclusion from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2)(b) or (c) of Directive 2004/83 is not conditional on the person concerned representing a present danger to the host Member State.

3. The exclusion of a person from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2)(b) or (c) of Directive 2004/83 is not conditional on an assessment of proportionality in relation to the particular case.

4. Article 3 of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may grant a right of asylum under their national law to a person who is excluded from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2) of the directive, provided that that other kind of protection does not entail a risk of confusion with refugee status within the meaning of the directive.