## Facts

- Two Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin (B and D) applied for refugee status in Germany after involvement with the PKK or related successor organizations.
- German authorities denied refugee status, invoking the exclusion clauses in Directive 2004/83/EC (Qualification Directive) for (b) serious non-political crimes and (c) acts contrary to UN purposes and principles.
- The PKK was later included on the EU list of terrorist organizations under Common Position 2001/931/CFSP; German authorities treated this as relevant to exclusion.
- Germany’s Federal Administrative Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) concerning the proper interpretation of the exclusion clauses and the interaction between EU refugee law and Germany’s constitutional asylum regime.
- The CJEU issued a single judgment addressing both references and left application of the clarified standards to the referring court.

## Issues

1. Whether mere membership in, or an organization’s inclusion on, the EU terrorist list automatically triggers exclusion from refugee status under Directive 2004/83/EC Art. 12(2)(b)–(c).
2. What showing of individual responsibility satisfies the “serious reasons for considering” threshold for exclusion based on serious non-political crimes or acts contrary to UN purposes and principles.
3. Whether exclusion under Art. 12(2)(b)–(c) requires proof that the applicant currently poses a danger to the host Member State.
4. Whether a Member State may grant refugee status under more favorable national law (including constitutional asylum) to a person excluded under Art. 12(2).

## Decision

- Membership in a terrorist organization, even one listed at EU level, does not by itself mandate exclusion; authorities must conduct an individualized assessment of the applicant’s conduct and role.
- Exclusion requires serious reasons for considering the applicant personally responsible for relevant acts, considering factors such as role, position, and knowledge within the organization.
- Art. 12(2)(b)–(c) does not require a finding of a present threat to the host Member State; the inquiry centers on the nature and seriousness of past acts and personal responsibility.
- A Member State may not grant “refugee status” under national law to a person excluded by Art. 12(2), because doing so would defeat the uniform operation of the EU exclusion regime; other non-refugee protection statuses may remain available if they do not amount to refugee status under EU law.
- The referring court retained responsibility for determining, under these standards, whether B and D were in fact excluded.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusion from refugee status under Directive 2004/83/EC Art. 12(2)(b)–(c) requires an individualized assessment; organization membership and EU listing are relevant indicators but not dispositive.
- “Serious reasons for considering” demands evidence supporting a conclusion of personal responsibility, which may be based on direct commission or forms of participation, support, or incitement tied to the applicant’s role and knowledge.
- Terrorist violence may qualify as a “serious non-political crime” and may also constitute acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, depending on gravity and context.
- The exclusion inquiry is not conditioned on current dangerousness; it is distinct from revocation or security-based measures that may require a forward-looking risk assessment.
- Member States may adopt more favorable standards only if compatible with the Directive; they cannot confer refugee status on an excluded person, though they may provide other lawful protection that is not refugee status.

## Conclusion

The CJEU held that exclusion from refugee status for terrorist-related conduct requires case-by-case proof of personal responsibility and does not follow automatically from group membership or EU terrorist listing; once Art. 12(2) applies, Member States cannot grant national refugee status to the excluded person, although separate non-refugee protections may still be available.


Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B & D, Joined Cases C-57/09 & C-101/09 (C.J.E.U. 2010)