In case C-8/22, the questions referred to the Court by the Belgian Council of State concern the connection between a conviction by a final judgment for a particularly serious crime and the existence of a danger to the community, and the scope and extent of the assessment of whether such a danger exists.

The Court holds that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime. A revocation measure is subject to two separate conditions being satisfied, namely, first, that the third-country national concerned has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and, secondly, that it has been established that that third-country national constitutes a danger to the community of the Member State in which he or she is present.

The Court clarifies that the revocation measure at issue may be adopted only where the third-country national concerned constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present. The Court adds that it is for the competent authority to undertake, for each individual case, an assessment of all the circumstances of the case concerned.

Where the two conditions laid down by EU law are satisfied, a Member State has the option to revoke refugee status without, however, being required to exercise that option: it must be exercised in observance of, inter alia, the principle of proportionality.

For further information, inter alia relating to cases C-663/21 and in case C-402/22, please read the press release from the Court of Justice of the European Union.