France: Council of State, 11 February 2015, No. 374167
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 case concerns an appeal of an Algerian woman to the Council of State, against a decision taken on the 17 June 2013 by the National Court of Asylum (CNDA), who rejected the appeal against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Person’s (OFPRA) decision concerning the applicant’s application for asylum.
The Council of State annulled the decision of the CNDA, stating that before finding the existence of a reasonable possibility for the applicant to find internal protection in another region of her country of origin, the Court should have looked into which part of the Algerian territory the applicant could, in all safety, access, settle, exist and lead a normal family life without the fear of being persecuted or being exposed to the risk of serious violence from her ex-husband.
Facts:
On 25 June 2012 the applicant received a rejection of her asylum application by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). She lodged an appeal against the decision before the National Court of Asylum , on the basis of a fear of being persecuted or exposed to the threats of her previous husband, in case of return to her country of origin.
Nevertheless on 17 June 2013 the CNDA rejected the appeal of the applicant, concluding that her fears of persecution, under articles L.711-1 and L.712-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum, were unfounded given the reasonable possibility of internal relocation in another part of Algerian territory, where the applicant could move to.
Subsequently, the applicant introduced an appeal to the Council of State, asking for the annulation of the negative decision of the Court, and of that concerning her rejected asylum claim. She also claimed an amount of 3,500 Euros from OFRA.
Decision & reasoning:
The Council of State took into account article L. 713-3 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum when refusing the decision of CNDA. Effectively, before establishing a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in Algeria, the Court should have confirmed that the applicant would have been able to safely access, settle and lead a proper family life in a part of the Algerian territory without the fear of persecution or being exposed to the serious threat of violence from her ex-husband. Moreover, the CNDA should have specified which part of the country met with these criteria.
Furthermore, the Council of State referred the decision concerning the applicant’s asylum claim and obliged OFPRA to pay 3,500 Euros to the applicant.
Outcome:
Appeal granted.
Subsequent proceedings:
The case was remitted to the National Court of Asylum (CNDA 27 May 2016 Mme S. n° 12022319 C ) who found that whilst the applicant may be subject to threats and intimidation, which would reach the threshold of subsidiary protection as codified in Article L712-1 of the CESDA, she could access protection in Alger and lead a normal life with members of her family without fear of a serious risk to her being. The Court found that five years after her departure from Algeria there was no evidence to suggest that her ex-husband would be able to find her outside of her city of origin. Moreover, given her remarriage and subsequent employment in Algerian public services the applicant could find a job in Alger and a lack of contacts in the city did nothing to prevent her from being able to settle there.
A summary of the case can be found here.
Observations/comments:
The decision of the Council of State (No. 374167) annulled the decision of the CNDA (No. 12022319) as they had made a legal error.
The language versions of this case summary have been proof read by Language Connect.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| France: National Asylum Court (CNDA), 17 June 2013, No. 12022319 |