The case concerned a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 10 of the recast Qualification Directive made in proceedings between P.I. and the Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of Lithuania (‘the Migration Department’) after the refusal to grant the applicant refugee status.

In his application for international protection, P.I. claimed that, in his country of origin, he was the subject of criminal proceedings, meant to intimidate him, after he requested the repayment of approximately EUR 647 000 from a private party with whom he had a contract, which eventually was not performed. He also claimed that his project was illegally appropriated and he was the subject of a criminal conviction and placement in provisional custody.

The Lithuanian Migration Department rejected his application, stating that although the reasons provided by the applicant were plausible and did give rise to the risk of criminal proceedings and custody, those reasons were not covered by the Geneva Convention under the concept of ‘political opinion’.

After the dismissal of his appeal by the Regional Administrative Court of Vilnius, the applicant lodged another appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The court suspended the procedure and referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU: “Is opposition to an illegally operating and corruptly influential group which oppresses an applicant for asylum through the machinery of the State and against which it is impossible to mount a legitimate defence due to extensive corruption in the State to be regarded as equivalent to attributed political opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of [Directive 2011/95]?”

On the concept of political opinion, the CJEU noted that Article 10(1)(e) of the recast Qualification Directive includes the holding of an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to the potential actors of persecution and to their policies or methods, being irrelevant whether the applicant actually possesses the political opinion which attracts persecution. Thus, the concept of political opinion is to be interpreted broadly. The court observed that the same interpretation is provided in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV.4).

The CJEU added that since the concept of political opinions protects the right to freedom of opinion and of expression, it must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the EU Charter and the ECtHR’s case law on Article 10 of the European Convention, which also supports a broad interpretation of the concept of political opinion. The CJEU further highlighted the ECtHR held that freedom of expression is given a high degree of protection where the expression relates to matters of public interest (ECtHR, Perinçek v. Switzerland, 15 October 2015) and that corruption related to management of public affairs is a matter of public interest and its discussion contributes to political debate (ECtHR, Nadtoka v. Russia, 31 May 2016).

The CJEU further noted that in determining the existence of political opinion and the causal link with acts of persecution, Member States must consider the general context of the country of origin from, inter alia, a political, legal, judicial, historical and sociocultural perspective. For example, the court noted its previous case law in which it held that in the context of armed conflict, where there is no legal possibility of avoiding military obligations, the authorities will likely interpret the refusal to perform military service as an act of political opposition (C‑238/19, 19 November 2020).

The CJEU note that attempts by an applicant to defend his interests by bringing actions before the courts against non-State actors acting illegally due to connections with the State via corruption, may be perceived by the state as an act of political dissent against which it might consider taking retaliatory action.

The court further noted that the assessment of facts and circumstances must be carried out on a case-by-case basis, focused on plausibility and taking into account that it may be particularly difficult to provide direct evidence that a certain act or omission by the applicant may be perceived by the authorities of the country of origin as a manifestation of political opinion.

The court concluded that the concept of political opinion includes attempts by an applicant to defend his personal material and economic interests by legal means against non-state actors acting illegally, where those actors, may exploit the criminal justice system through corruption.