M., a national from Chechnya (Russia) was granted a right to asylum in the Czech Republic on 21 April 2006. Before receiving it, M. committed a robbery for which he received a three-year custodial sentence. After being granted the right to asylum, he also received a nine-year custodial sentence for repeated offence of robbery and extortion. Based on those facts, the Ministry of Interior decided on 29 April 2014 to revoke M.'s right to asylum and rejected granting him subsidiary protection on the ground that he had been convicted by final judgment of a particular serious crime and he represented a danger to the security of the State. Upon having his appeal to Prague City Court dismissed, M. lodged an appeal on a point of law before the Supreme Administrative Court. The court questioned whether Article 14(4) and (6) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD) (Directive 2011/95) were possibly infringing the Geneva Convention as they were extending the grounds for exclusion from refugee status beyond the grounds exclusion and cessation clauses laid down in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.

The case was joined with other two cases referred by the Council for Aliens Law Litigation (CALL). The first concerned X., an Ivorian national who had been convicted in Belgium to imprisonment for two different offenses before 2015, when he requested asylum in the country. By decision of 19 August 2016, he was refused refugee status and excluded from subsidiary protection and was considered a danger to the community in view of the particularly serious nature of the offenses committed. However, an opinion was issued indicating that in view of his well-founded fears of persecution in Cote d'Ivoire he could not be directly or indirectly refouled as such action would be incompatible with Articles 48/3 and 48/4 of the Aliens Law 1980. Upon appeal to the CALL, the court considered whether Article 14(5) of the recast QD introduced a new ground for exclusion from refugee status not provided in the Geneva Convention, stayed the domestic proceedings and submitted several questions to the CJEU for preliminary ruling. The second case referred from the CALL to the CJEU concerned X., a national from the DRC who after being recognised as a refugee in 2007, was sentenced in 2010 to 25 years imprisonment for homicide and aggravated robbery, so he was withdrawn his refugee status in 2016. He was also declared a danger to the community due to the nature of the offenses committed and an opinion of the Commissaire general indicated that his removal was compatible with Articles 48/3 and 48/4 of the Aliens Law 1980 in so far as X.'s fears raised in 2007 were no longer relevant. As in the first mentioned case, the CALL also questioned the validity of Article 14(4) of the recast QD in light of Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the TFEU.

The CJEU joined the three cases and provided a common answer. The summary of the questions referred concerned the fact that the scenarios referred to in Article 14(4) and (5) of the recast QD do not correspond to the exclusion and cessation clauses set out in Article 1(C) to (F) of the Geneva Convention, while those exclusion and cessation clauses are, within the scheme of that convention, exhaustive. Thus, the court indicated, it was for it to rule whether Article 14(4) to (6) of the recast QD can, in accordance with the requirements of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 Charter be interpreted in a way that ensures the level of protection guaranteed by the rules of the Geneva Convention is observed. The CJEU replied by analysing three main elements: first, the system introduced by the recast QD; second, Articles 14(4) and (5) of the recast QD, and third, Article 14(6) of the recast QD.

On the system introduced by the recast QD, the court held that although the recast QD establishes a system of rules peculiar to the EU, it is nonetheless based on the Geneva Convention, and its purpose is to ensure that Article 1 of that convention is complied with in full. In addition, the court ruled that, the term refugee of Article 2(d) recast QD reproduces in essence the definition of Article 1(A)(2) of the Geneva Convention and within the system introduced by the recast QD, a third country national who satisfies the conditions set out in Chapter III of that directive is, on that basis alone, a refugee for the purposes of Article 2(d) and Article 1(A) of the Convention, an without the need of a formal recognition.

Next, the CJEU ruled that Article 14(4) to (5) of the recast QD cannot be interpreted to mean that the effect of the revocation of refugee status or the refusal to grant that status is that an applicant who qualifies for international protection is not a refugee and is thus excluded from protection. Besides, the CJEU held that, whilst Article 33(2) of the Geneva Convention denies the refugee the benefit of the principle of non-refoulement in circumstances where he has been convicted or considered a danger to the community, the EU system provided more extensive protection. The court explained that Article 21(2) of the recast QD must be applied guaranteeing the rights of the EU Charter which entails that Member States may not remove, expel or extradite a foreign national where there are substantial grounds for believing that he will face a genuine risk, in the country of destination, of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter.

On Article 14(6) of the recast QD, the CJEU ruled that a Member State which applies Article 14(4) and (5) must grant to the concerned refugee, at least, the rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention referred in Article 14(6) and the rights provided for by the convention which do not require a lawful stay.

The CJEU concluded that the above interpretation of Articles 14(4) to (6) of the recast QD ensured the minimum level of protection laid down by the Geneva Convention is observed, holding that no factor arose to affect their validity in light of Article 78(1) and Article 18 of the Charter.