A Moroccan national applied for international protection in Belgium and the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected his application due to his involvement in a terrorist group. 

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) and in cassation before the Council of State, claiming that exclusion from international protection cannot be automatic if there is a criminal conviction but requires the assessment of the precise facts of each individual case made by the national authorities, in accordance to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Lounani judgment C-573/14. The applicant stated that the CGRS had not identified and analysed the seriousness of the precise facts of which the applicant was accused of. In addition, the applicant submitted that the judgement in which he was convicted has been based on statements of persons detained in Morocco, and they could not be used as evidence for excluding the applicant from international protection without examining the applicant's argument. The applicant further asked that the case be referred to the CJEU.

The CALL observed that there was no need to refer the case to the CJEU because the applicant's arguments were unrelated to the scope of Article 12 of the recast Qualification Directive (QD). In cassation the Council of State confirmed this point.

The CALL stated that the decision of CGRS was not based on the statements of persons detained in Morocco. It was further noted that the CGRS did not base the applicant's exclusion from international protection on elements obtained in violation of Article 3 of ECHR, but based on the fact that the applicant had been convicted of participation in the activities of a terrorist group. Recalling the CJEU's case law in the joined cases C-57/09 and C-101/09, the CALL concluded that exclusion from refugee status is linked to the seriousness of the acts committed which must be of such a degree that the applicant cannot claim international protection within the meaning of Article 2 of the recast QD. The CALL confirmed the seriousness of the acts committed and the exclusion of the applicant from international protection.

In cassation appeal, the Council of State confirmed the judgment of the CALL and the fact that the applicant's right to an effective remedy was respected. It noted that the CALL observed that the final conviction of the applicant for acts of participation in the activities of a terrorist group was, as indicated by the CJEU, of particular importance in order to assess whether there were serious reasons to believe that the applicant was guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.