Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 23 March 2011, 11/0337/3
| Country of Decision: | Finland |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Helsinki Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 23-03-2011 |
| Citation: | 11/0337/3 |
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. |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
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. |
|
Subsidiary Protection
Description
The protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15 of 2004/83/EC, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) of 2004/83/EC do not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.” “Note: The UK has opted into the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) but does not (legally) use the term Subsidiary Protection. It is believed that the inclusion of Humanitarian Protection within the UK Immigration rules fully transposes the Subsidiary Protection provisions of the Qualification Directive into UK law. |
|
Internal armed conflict
Description
“A conflict in which government forces are fighting with armed insurgents, or armed groups are fighting amongst themselves.” |
Headnote:
The Court found that the province of Ghazni, Afghanistan was still unstable and unsafe for the local population due to the presence of an internal armed conflict. However the security situation in Kabul had not deteriorated to the extent to be classified as an internal armed conflict.
Facts:
The applicants were nationals of Afghanistan and lived in Kabul, before moving to Ghazni. They feared the Taliban and had already lost a family member. The Administrative Court found that the applicants’ account of the grounds for asylum were unspecified as a whole.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court found that the applicants could not safely return to Ghazni, as the situation there was still unstable and unsafe for the local population due to the existence of an armed conflict. On the other hand, the security situation in Kabul had not deteriorated to the extent to be classified as an internal armed conflict. Therefore, the applicants can safely return to Kabul, and therefore they could not be awarded residence permits on the grounds of subsidiary (or humanitarian) protection. Even though it may be difficult for the applicants to be accepted or survive financially without a social network in another location, personal characteristics play the largest role. In general, ethnic or other reasons do not prevent an applicant from settling in and being accepted in a new region, even if they lack a social network.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court refused the appeal.
Subsequent proceedings:
An appeal is pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.