Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
05/05/2021
The CJEU ruled on the suspensive effect of an appeal against a return decision concerning an applicant who suffered from a serious illness.

ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2021:374
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Other Source/Information
Type
Order
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals)
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], VT v Centre public d'action sociale de Líège (CPAS), C-641/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:374, 05 May 2021. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=2144
Case history
Other information

European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (Belgium), C‑233/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:757, 30 September 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.

European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing (Belgium), C‑402/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:759, 30 September 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.

Abstract

 


The applicant, VT, Iraqi national, was granted refugee status in 2016 and by decision of 28 May 2018, the 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 was adopted on 24 April 2020. His appeal against this decision is still pending. The CPAS decided on 17 June 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant starting with 2 June 2020 the social assistance equivalent to social integration income at the isolated rate.


The national court acknowledge that the applicant suffers from a serious illness which could justify the application, in his regard, of the case-law resulting from the judgments of 18 December 2014, Abdida (C-562/13, EU:C:2014:2453), of 30 September 2020, CPAS de Liège (C-233/19, EU:C:2020:757), and of 30 September 2020, CPAS de Seraing (C-402/19, EU:C:2020:759). 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.


It sought to determine, in essence, whether Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in the light of 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive 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 has been subject following the withdrawal by the competent authority of his refugee status pursuant to Article 11 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, a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and the content of that protection, and correspondingly, a provisional right of residence and the assumption of his basic needs until a decision is taken on that remedy, in the exceptional case where that national suffering from a serious illness, is likely, as a result of the implementation of that decision, to be exposed to a serious risk of serious and irreversible deterioration of his state of health. In that context, the national court seized of a dispute the outcome of which is linked to a possible suspension of the effects of the return decision must consider that the action brought against that decision is automatically suspensive, since that action contains an argument, which does not appear to be manifestly unfounded, seeking to establish that the enforcement of that decision would expose the third-country national to a serious risk of serious deterioration and irreversible of his state of health.


 


Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
C-641/20
Date of Decision
05/05/2021
Country of Origin
Iraq
Keywords
Effective remedy
Medical condition
Reception/Accommodation
Return/Removal/Deportation
Second instance determination / Appeal
Suspensive effect
Vulnerable Group
Withdrawal/End/Revocation/Renewal of Protection
Source
CURIA