Opinion of Advocate General Collins, K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C‑646/21
- Document source:
-
Date:
13 July 2023
In this section
The present Opinion concerns the applications for international protection of K and L, two teenage girls from Iraq (2) who lived in the Netherlands for five years whilst their family’s initial applications for international protection were being examined. During that time, they were part of a society that values gender equality and they adopted the values, norms and conduct of their peers. In their subsequent applications for international protection, (3) which the Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (State Secretary for Justice and Security, Netherlands) has rejected as manifestly unfounded, (4) the appellants claim that, if they return to Iraq, they will be unable to conform to values, norms and conduct that do not afford women and girls the freedoms that they enjoyed in the Netherlands, the expression of which would expose them to the risk of persecution. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling ask whether persons in the appellants’ circumstances may be entitled to international protection because they are members of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, (5) and how a child’s best interests may be taken into account in the assessment of applications for international protection.
8. The referring court therefore stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Must Article 10(1)(d) of [Directive 2011/95] be interpreted as meaning that Western norms, values and actual conduct which third-country nationals adopt while staying in the territory of the Member State and participating fully in society for a significant part of the phase of their lives in which they form their identity are to be regarded as a common background that cannot be changed or characteristics that are so fundamental to identity that a person should not be forced to renounce them?
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are third-country nationals who, irrespective of the reasons, have adopted comparable Western norms and values through actual residence in the Member State during the phase of their lives in which they form their identity to be regarded as “[members of] a particular social group” within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of [Directive 2011/95]? Is the question of whether there is a “particular social group … that … has a distinct identity in the relevant country” to be assessed from the perspective of the Member State or must this, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of [Directive 2011/95], be interpreted as meaning that decisive weight is given to the ability of the foreign national to demonstrate that he or she is regarded in the country of origin as belonging to a particular social group or, at any rate, that this is attributed to him or her? Is the requirement that westernisation can lead to refugee status only if it stems from religious or political motives compatible with Article 10 of [Directive 2011/95], read in conjunction with the prohibition on refoulement and the right to asylum?
(3) Is a national legal practice whereby a decision-maker, when assessing an application for international protection, weighs up the best interests of the child without first concretely determining (in each procedure) the best interests of the child compatible with EU law and, in particular, with Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”), read in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Charter? Is the answer to this question different if the Member State has to assess a request for the grant of residence on ordinary grounds and the best interests of the child must be taken into account in deciding on that request?
(4) Having regard to Article 24(2) of the Charter, in which manner and at what stage of the assessment of an application for international protection must the best interests of the child, and, more specifically, the harm suffered by a minor as a result of his or her long residence in a Member State, be taken into account and weighed up? Is it relevant in that regard whether that actual residence was lawful? Is it relevant, when weighing up the best interests of the child in the above assessment, whether the Member State took a decision on the application for international protection within the time limits laid down in EU law, whether a previously imposed obligation to return was not complied with and whether the Member State did not effect removal after a return decision had been issued, as a result of which the minor’s actual residence in the Member State was able to continue?
(5) Is a national legal practice whereby a distinction is made between initial and subsequent applications for international protection, in the sense that ordinary grounds are disregarded in the case of subsequent applications for international protection, compatible with EU law, having regard to Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) thereof?’
<p class="text-align-justify C01PointAltN" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:28.35pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">74. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (District Court, The Hague, sitting in ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) as follows:</p><p class="text-align-justify C09Marge0avecretrait" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">(1) Article 10(1)(d) 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</p><p class="text-align-justify C10Marge1" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">must be interpreted as meaning that:</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– third-country nationals who are girls and women share an innate characteristic on account of their biological sex and, as a result of having lived in a Member State for a considerable period during the phase of their life in which they form their identity, may share a belief in gender equality that is so fundamental to their identity that they should not be forced to renounce it;</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– in order to determine whether a group has a distinct identity in a country of origin because the surrounding society perceives it as being different, Member States are required, pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2011/95, to take into account all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on an application for international protection, including that country of origin’s laws and regulations and the manner in which they are applied, together with any relevant elements the applicant for international protection submits;</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– a group consisting of women and girls who share a belief in gender equality has a distinct identity in the country of origin if, when they express that belief by way of statements or conduct, they are perceived by society in that country as transgressing social mores;</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– it is unnecessary for a shared belief in gender equality to have a religious or political basis.</p><p class="text-align-justify C09Marge0avecretrait" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">(2) Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,</p><p class="text-align-justify C10Marge1" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">must be interpreted as meaning that:</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– a national practice whereby a decision-maker, when carrying out the substantive assessment of an application for international protection or a subsequent application for international protection, does not take into account, as a primary consideration, the best interests of the child, or weighs up the best interests of the child without first determining, in each procedure, what the best interests of the child are, is incompatible with EU law;</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– the methodology and procedure for determining the best interests of the child are matters for the Member States to establish, taking full account of the principle of effectiveness;</p><p class="text-align-justify C12Marge1avectiretlong" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Open Sans", sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:85.05pt;orphans:2;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:-28.35pt;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">– harm that a minor has suffered as a result of his or her long stay in a Member State is irrelevant to a decision as to whether to grant a subsequent application for international protection when that long stay in a Member State is the result of decisions of the minor’s parents or guardians to exhaust the legal remedies available to challenge the rejection of the initial application and to lodge a subsequent application for international protection.</p>
Related documents
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.
