Judgment_paragraph 67 · Bundesrepublik Deutschland v B and D (C-57/09, C-101/09)

67It is against that background that the Bundesverwaltungsgericht decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, in each of the cases before it, the following five questions — the first and fifth of which differ slightly on account of the particular facts of each of those cases — to the Court for a preliminary ruling:(1) Does it constitute a serious non-political crime or an act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of [Directive 2004/83] ifthe person seeking asylum was a member of an organisation which is included in the list of persons, groups and entities annexed to the … Common Position [2001/931] and employs terrorist methods, and the appellant has actively supported that organisation’s armed struggle? (Case C-57/09)a foreign national was for many years involved as a combatant and an official — including for a time as a member of its governing body — in an organisation (in this case, the PKK) which repeatedly employed terrorist methods in the armed struggle waged against the State (in this case, Turkey) and is included in the list of persons, groups and entities annexed to the … Common Position [2001/931], and the foreign national thereby actively supported its armed struggle in a prominent position? (Case C-101-09)(2) If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: does exclusion from recognition as a refugee under Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of [Directive 2004/83] … require that the foreign national continue to constitute a danger?(3) If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: does exclusion from recognition as a refugee under Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of [Directive 2004/83]… require that a proportionality test be undertaken in relation to the individual case?(4) If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative:(a) Is it to be taken into account in considering proportionality that the foreign national enjoys protection against deportation under Article 3 of the [ECHR] or under national rules?(b) Is exclusion disproportionate only in exceptional cases having particular characteristics?(5) Is it compatible with Directive 2004/83, for the purposes of Article 3 of [Directive 2004/83] …, ifthe appellant has a right to asylum under national constitutional law even if one of the exclusion criteria laid down in Article 12(2) of the directive is satisfied? (Case C-57/09)the foreign national continues to be recognised as having a right of asylum under national constitutional law even if one of the exclusion criteria laid down in Article 12(2) of the directive is satisfied and refugee status under Article 14(3) of the directive is revoked? (Case C-101/09)’