Belgium – Council of State, 26 May 2009, Nr. 193.523

Belgium – Council of State, 26 May 2009, Nr. 193.523
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of applicant: Russia
Court name: Council of State
Date of decision: 26-05-2009
Citation: Nr. 193.523
Additional citation: A.184.907/XIV-29.768

Keywords:

Keywords
Credibility assessment
Individual assessment
Subsidiary Protection

Headnote:

The Council of State ruled that in support of an application for subsidiary protection a mere reference to the general situation in the country of origin is insufficient, and that the applicant needs to make a link between that general situation and his/her personal situation, even if no proof of an individual threat is required. The applicant’s account was found to be implausible regarding her recent stay/residence and as a result the applicant made the establishment of such a link impossible.

Facts:

The applicant, of Russian nationality, filed an appeal against a decision of the Council of Alien Law Litigation (CALL) in which it rejected her application for refugee status or subsidiary protection status on the basis that they did not find her credible based on the statements she had given in support of her application (in particular regarding her alleged recent stay/residence in Chechnya).
 

Decision & reasoning:

The applicant argued that she had given a specific argument in support of her application for subsidiary protection, which was different from the arguments she had given in support of her application for refugee status. She had advanced that, independently of the question of whether she had recently stayed in Chechnya or not, she had in any event a well-founded fear of persecution in Chechnya and in other Russian regions, her “propiska” (residence permit) was only valid for Grozny, and there was therefore no possibility of “internal protection”, especially considering her argument that Chechnyans are persecuted throughout Russia. The applicant argued that the CALL could therefore not reject the application for subsidiary protection for the same reasons as it had rejected the application for refugee status, and therefore the issue of her subsidiary protection claim remained unanswered.

The Council of State disagreed with the applicant’s argument. The Council stated that “a reference to the general situation in the country of origin cannot suffice, but that the applicant must demonstrate a link between his/her person and the general situation, even if this does not require evidence of an individual threat.” The Council then considered that by making implausible statements, in particular regarding her alleged stay/residence in Chechnya, the applicant had herself made the evidence of such a link with her person impossible. The Council ruled that the CALL’s decision to refuse subsidiary protection status on credibility grounds was perfectly valid. It was not necessary to answer the “propiska” argument.

Outcome:

The appeal was rejected.

Relevant International and European Legislation: