A Moroccan national applied for international protection in Cyprus on 10 January 2019. On 28 January 2019, the Cyprus Counter Terrorism Office sent the Asylum Service a confidential letter stating that the applicant had been identified as a person engaged in operational activity for a terrorist group and that he had been in trouble with Belgian, Spanish, and French police authorities for various offences and had threatened to bomb the Belgian embassy in Morocco. On 19 April 2019, the applicant was notified about the rejection of his request. It stated that whilst there were substantial reasons for believing he would be persecuted upon return to Morocco on account of his opinions, he posed a danger to the community and the security of Cyprus and thus refugee status should be refused to him. The same day, the applicant appealed the decision to the Refugee Reviewing Authority, which on 30 July 2019 confirmed that decision. On 14 October 2019, the applicant appealed to the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC) for the decision to be annulled. The IPAC decided to stay the proceedings and submit three questions to the CJEU:

1. Whether Article 14(4)(a) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD) can be interpreted to mean that refugee status can be revoked based on the past conduct or alleged acts of the refugee outside and prior to entering the State of refuge which are not included in the conduct which constitutes grounds for exclusion from being a refugee according to Article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention and Article 12 of the recast QD on exclusion, which explicitly set out the grounds on which a person may be excluded from being a refugee.
2. In case the answer to the question would be positive, whether Article 14(4)(a) of the recast QD would be compatible with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the TFEU.
3. How is the concept “danger to the security of the … State” to be interpreted for the purposes of Article 14(4)(a) of the recast QD, considering the extremely high standard established for that concept in Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention and the serious consequences for a refugee whose status is revoked. More specifically, can that article include an assessment of the danger in the light of alleged conduct or acts prior or reference to the conduct and acts of the refugee outside that State?

The CJEU preliminarily observed that by its questions, the referring court requested the interpretation of Article 14(4)(a) and 14(5) of the recast

The court examined the first and third questions together. It held that acts or conduct of the applicant prior to his entry into the territory of that Member State can be considered by the Member State to decide whether to grant or to revoke refugee status. The CJEU noted that it is irrelevant whether those acts and conduct constitute grounds for exclusion from being a refugee expressly provided for in Article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention, and Article 12 of the recast QD. To assess the level of seriousness of the danger justifying the revocation of refugee status or the refusal to grant it, and the consequences such refusal or revocation, there is no need to refer to the conditions applicable to the concept of ‘danger to the security of the country’ to which Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention refers or to the resulting serious consequences for that refugee. In concluding this the CJEU noted that:

• No provision of the recast QD defines the meaning and scope of the term ‘reasonable grounds’ and ‘danger to the security of the Member State’.

• The competent authority cannot be required to exclude considering past conduct as past acts or conduct may constitute relevant circumstances to ascertain whether the applicant has a tendency to maintain such conduct in the future or to repeat such acts having regard, in particular, to the seriousness of that conduct or of those acts, the time elapsed since that conduct or those acts occurred and any subsequent developments.

• The concept of security of Article 14(4)(a) of the recast QD corresponds to that of national security, and as such it encompasses both internal and external security, thus a threat to the functioning of institutions and essential public services and to the survival of the population, as well as the risk of a serious disturbance to foreign relations or to peaceful coexistence of nations, or a risk to military interests. In particular, the court noted that according to Recital 37 of the recast QD the notion also covers cases in which a third-country national belongs to an association which supports international terrorism or supports such an association.

• Reasonable grounds for regarding of Article 14(4)(a) covers not only a genuine and present danger, but also a potential danger.

• Considering past acts or conduct attributable to the refugee cannot be restricted by the fact that those acts and that conduct do not constitute grounds for exclusion from being a refugee expressly provided for in Article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention and Article 12 of the recast QD. The court emphasized that by contrast to the causes of exclusion, the grounds for revocation differ in that they do not have the effect that the third country national concerned ceases to be a refugee.

• The revocation of refugee status or the refusal to grant that status according to Article 14(4) or (5) of the recast QD, cannot be regarded as implying the adoption of a position on the separate question of whether that person can be deported to his or her country of origin. Therefore, the court held there is no need to refer to a level of seriousness of the danger such as to justify the refoulement of the person concerned to his or her country of origin, under the conditions laid down in Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention.

• The reference to ‘reasonable grounds’ for considering that the applicant for international protection or the refugee constitutes a danger to the security of the host Member State clearly leaves that Member State a wide margin of discretion.

As for the second question, the court held that since revocation of refugee status does not result on the third country national concerned no longer being a refugee, Article 14(4) and (5) of the recast QD cannot be interpreted as adding new grounds for exclusion from being a refugee to those set out in Article 12(2) of that directive and Article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention. Such conclusion, the court noted, disclosed no new factor to affect the validity of that provision in light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the EU Charter.