Joined Cases C‑443/14 and C‑444/14

Kreis Warendorf
v
Ibrahim Alo

and

Amira Osso
v
Region Hannover

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 — Articles 23 and 26 — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2011/95/EU — Rules relating to the content of international protection — Subsidiary protection status — Article 29 — Social welfare — Conditions of access — Article 33 — Freedom of movement within the host Member State — Definition — Restriction — Obligation to reside in a particular place — Different treatment — Comparable situations — Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities — Grounds of migration or integration policy)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 1 March 2016

1.        EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Art. 33)

2.        Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95 — Freedom of movement within a Member State — Scope — Freedom to travel and to choose the place of residence —National rules imposing a residence condition on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status — Unlawful

(Art. 78(1) TFEU; Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 26; European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Recitals 3, 4, 8, 9, 23, 24 and 39 and Arts 20(2) and 33)

3.        Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95 — Freedom of movement within a Member State — Scope — Freedom to travel and to choose the place of residence —National rules imposing a residence condition on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits — Measure intended to ensure an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying those benefits — Unlawful

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Arts 29 and 33)

4.        Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95 — Freedom of movement within a Member State — Scope — Freedom to travel and to choose the place of residence —National rules imposing a residence condition on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits — Justification — Integration of third-country nationals in the Member State concerned — Lawfulness — Conditions — Equal treatment of third-country nationals in a comparable situation

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Art. 33)

1.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 23-27)

2.        Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it does not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the Member State that has granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition.

In that regard, recitals 8, 9 and 39 of Directive 2011/95 state that the EU legislature intended, in responding to the call of the Stockholm Programme, to establish a uniform status for all beneficiaries of international protection and that it accordingly chose to afford beneficiaries of subsidiary protection the same rights and benefits as those enjoyed by refugees, with the exception of derogations which are necessary and objectively justified. Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 makes clear that the freedom of movement it lays down is secured for beneficiaries of international protection, which means that refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are, in that respect, subject to the same rules.

Article 26 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees and whose application by the competent authorities of the Member States on the basis of common concepts and criteria is furthered by the directive, guarantees for refugees the right to freedom of movement, by expressly providing that that freedom includes not only the right to move freely in the territory of the State that has granted refugee status, but also the right of refugees to choose their place of residence in that territory. There is nothing to suggest that the EU legislature chose to include only the first of those rights in Directive 2011/95, but not the second. A different interpretation would mean that that right was afforded only to refugees and would thus create — despite the absence of an express provision to that effect in the directive — a distinction (contrary to the objective of establishing a uniform status for all beneficiaries of international protection) between the content of the protection afforded in this respect to, on the one hand, refugees and, on the other, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status.

(see paras 28, 32, 34-36, 40, operative part 1)

3.        Articles 29 and 33 of Directive 2011/95 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, must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a residence condition on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, for the purpose of achieving an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying those benefits among the various institutions competent in that regard, when the applicable national rules do not provide for the imposition of such a measure on refugees, third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law or nationals of that Member State in receipt of those benefits.

First, under Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 26 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is relevant for determining the scope of the freedom of movement of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, such beneficiaries cannot, in principle, be subject to more restrictive rules, as regards the choice of their place of residence, than those applicable to other third-country nationals who are legally resident in the Member State which has granted that protection.

Second, in the two situations mentioned in Article 29 of Directive 2011/95, the conditions under which beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are eligible for the social assistance extended to them by the Member State that has granted them that protection must be the same as those under which such assistance is granted to nationals of that Member State.

Admittedly, national rules could legitimately provide for a residence condition to be imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, without such a condition being imposed on refugees, third-country nationals legally resident in the territory of the Member State concerned on other grounds and nationals of that Member State, if those groups are not in an objectively comparable situation as regards the objective pursued by those rules.

However, the movement of recipients of welfare benefits or the fact that such persons are not equally concentrated throughout the Member State may mean that the costs entailed in paying those benefits are not evenly distributed among the various competent institutions, irrespective of the potential qualification of such recipients for subsidiary protection status.

(cf. points 42-45, 50, 54, 55, operative part 2)

4.        Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a residence condition from being imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, with the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the Member State that has granted that protection — when the applicable national rules do not provide for such a measure to be imposed on third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law and who are in receipt of those benefits — if beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are not in a situation that is objectively comparable, so far as that objective is concerned, with the situation of third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law, it being for the referring court to determine whether that is the case.

A difference in situation of that kind could be found to exist if the fact that a third-country national in receipt of welfare benefits is a beneficiary of international protection means that he will face greater difficulties relating to integration than another third-country national who is legally resident in the Member State concerned and in receipt of such benefits.

That might, in particular, be the case if, pursuant to a national rule under which the stay of third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law is generally subject to a condition that they are able to support themselves, those nationals were eligible for welfare benefits only after a certain period of continuous legal residence in the host Member State. It could be assumed from such a period of residence that the third-country nationals concerned are sufficiently integrated in that Member State and therefore would not be in a situation comparable with that of beneficiaries of international protection so far as the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals is concerned.

(see paras 62-64, operative part 3)