VT, an Iraqi national, was granted refugee status in 2016, and by decision of 28 May 2018, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) withdrew his status on grounds related to the applicant's stay in his country of origin in December 2017 to attend a funeral.
The decision to withdraw his residence permit and the order to leave the country were adopted on 24 April 2020. His appeal against this decision is still pending. The Public Centre for Social Welfare of Liège (in French, CPAS) decided on 17 June 2020 to refuse, starting from 2 June 2020, to grant the applicant social assistance equivalent to social integration income at the isolated rate.
The referring court acknowledged that the applicant suffered from a serious illness which could justify the application, in his regard, of the case-law resulting from the judgments of Abdida (C-562/13, 18 December 2014), B v. CPAS de Liège (C-233/19, 30 September 2020), LM v. CPAS de Seraing (C-402/19, 30 September 2020). It observed, however, that, in the opinion of the CPAS, the case of the applicant does not fall within the exceptional cases covered by that case-law.
The referring court asked whether the applicant must be regarded as 'staying illegally' in Belgium, within the meaning of Article 57(2) of the Law of 8 July 1976 Organic Law on Public Social Welfare Centers.
It sought to determine, in essence, whether Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not confer automatic suspensive effect on an appeal brought by a third-country national against a return decision, within the meaning of Article 3(4) of that directive, to which he was subject following the withdrawal, by the competent authority, of his refugee status, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2011/95, and correspondingly, a provisional right of residence and the provision of his basic needs until a decision was taken on that action, in the exceptional case where that national suffering from a serious illness was likely, as a result of the execution of that decision, to be exposed to a serious risk of serious and irreversible deterioration of his state of health.
The CJEU ruled that Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC (Returns Directive), read with Articles 19(2) and 47 of the EU Charter and Article 14(1)(b) of the Returns Directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that does not confer automatic suspensive effect on an appeal by a third-country national against a return decision under Article 3(4) of that directive. The court clarified that such automatic suspensive effect applies as well when the person is subject to a return decision following the withdrawal of refugee status under Article 11 of Directive 2011/95/EU (recast Qualification Directive).
In the exceptional case where the applicant, suffering from a serious illness, is likely to face a risk of serious and irreversible deterioration of health as a result of the return decision, the suspensive effect entails a provisional right of residence and the ability to meet basic needs until a decision is made on the remedy. In such context, the national court handling a dispute linked to a possible suspension of the return decision must consider the action against that decision as automatically suspensive if the action contains an argument that is not manifestly unfounded and claims that enforcement would expose the person to a serious risk of irreversible deterioration of health.