Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
23/05/2019
CJEU ruled on the interpretation of the Article 19 (1) of Directive 2011/95/EU related to the revocation of the subsidiary protection.

ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2019:448
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Source
CURIA
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
No
Original Documents
Type
Judgment
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights; Revised Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection- recast)/or QD 2004/83/EC;
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], Mohammed Bilali v Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl- BFA), Case C‑720/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:448, 23 May 2019. 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=733
Case history
Related cases:
Abstract

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 19 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, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Mohammed Bilali and the Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, Austria) concerning the revocation of the subsidiary protection status granted to Mr Bilali.

The Court ruled,  

Article 19(1) 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, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must revoke subsidiary protection status if it granted that status when the conditions for granting it were not met, in reliance on facts which have subsequently been revealed to be incorrect, and notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State on that occasion.

For more details on the case, please consult the original document mentioned below. 

Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
Case C‑720/17
Date of Decision
23/05/2019
Country of Origin
Keywords
Renewal/Withdrawal/Revocation of Protection
Subsidiary Protection