France: National Asylum Court (CNDA), 17 June 2013, No. 12022319
| Country of Decision: | France |
| Court name: | National Court of Asylum (CNDA) |
| Date of decision: | 17-06-2013 |
| Citation: | No. 12022319 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
Persecution (acts of)
Description
"Human rights abuses or other serious harm, often, but not always, with a systematic or repetitive element. Per Article 9 of the Qualification Directive, acts of persecution for the purposes of refugee status must: (a) be acts sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the ECHR; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). This may, inter alia, take the form of: acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence; legal, administrative, police and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner; prosecution or punishment, which is disproportionate or discriminatory; denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses in Article 12(2). " |
|
Country of origin
Description
The country (or countries) which are a source of migratory flows and of which a migrant may have citizenship. In refugee context, this means the country (or countries) of nationality or, for stateless persons, of former habitual residence. |
Headnote:
The Court stated that the applicant’s fear of persecution and serious threat, related to assaults by her former spouse are unfounded because the Court believes that the applicant has a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in another part of her country of origin. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) decision refusing the grant of international protection).
Facts:
On 25 June 2012, the Director General of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the applicant’s asylum claim. The claim was made due to her fears of persecution or being exposed to serious threats from her former spouse if she returned to her country of origin.
Following charges brought against the violence perpetrated by her previous husband, who suffered from psychological pathology, and a subsequent negative response by the Algerian authorities, the applicant, pregnant with twins, came to France with her new husband. The applicant was, however, forced to return to Algeria on account of the ill treatment the applicants former spouse had meted out to their first girl, who had stayed in Algeria with the applicant’s parents.
After renewed violence, the woman decided to leave Algeria to France with her current husband and children, where she applied for asylum. The 25 June 2012 the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the asylum claim of the applicant, who appealed to the National Court of Asylum (CNDA), due to the fear of being persecuted or exposed to the threats of her previous husband, in case of return to Algeria.
Decision & reasoning:
The CNDA acknowledged that the applicant, remarried with a family, had repeatedly been victim of violence at the hands of her former spouse. The Court also took into account that the applicant was not protected by the Algerian authorities in Annaba, as confirmed by the decision of the Constitutional Council in 2003, due to the psychiatric pathology of her former spouse and the testimony of his father (an ex-army officer).
Nevertheless, the Court stated that the fears of the applicant were unfounded, according to article L.711-1 and L.712-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum, as it estimated that there was a reasonable possibility for the applicant to find internal protection in another area of Algeria, where she could move.
Therefore, on the 17 June 2013 the CNDA rejected the appeal of the applicant.
Outcome:
Appeal rejected.
Subsequent proceedings:
Observations/comments:
The language versions of this case summary were proof read by Language Connect.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Follower Cases:
| Follower Cases |
| France: Council of State, 11 February 2015, No. 374167 |