Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 5 May 2009, 10 C 19.08

Facts:

The applicants are a married couple from Chechnya. The husband is of Armenian ethnicity, his wife is of Chechen ethnicity. They applied for asylum in Germany in October 2002. The application was rejected by the authorities in March 2003.

In June 2004, the Administrative Court required the authorities to grant refugee status to the applicants, since Chechens in Chechnya were subject to “group persecution”. The court found that internal protection was not available in other parts of the Russian Federation. 

The High Administrative Court of Hessen annulled the decision of the Administrative Court in April 2008. The High Administrative Court held that it could indeed be assumed that the applicants were at risk of persecution because they belonged to the “group of Caucasians originating from Chechnya”. However, the applicants could find an internal protection alternative according to Art. 8 of the Qualification Directive in those places, in which the Armenian diaspora in the Russian Federation lives (Stawropol, Krasnodar and Rostov on Don). With support from Armenian nationals there, they would be able to overcome bureaucratic obstacles and obtain their registration and safeguard their means of existence.

Decision & reasoning:

The further appeal (Revision) against the decision of the High Administrative Court Hessen was dismissed. The Federal Administrative Court did not object to the High Administrative Court's findings, according to which the applicants have access to internal protection in other parts of the Russian Federation. The Court stated:

The High Administrative Court had assumed that the applicants would be at risk of being persecuted as members of a “group of Caucasians originating from Chechnya”. It can be left open whether this assessment is in line with the requirements of the Federal Administrative Court (for example, Federal Administrative Court, 21 April 2009, 10 C 11.08), since refugee status was denied by the High Administrative Court on the grounds that the applicants had access to internal protection.

The applicants themselves do not challenge the finding according to which they would not have a well-founded fear of persecution in other parts of the Russian Federation. Instead, they object to the finding that they could reasonably be expected to take up residence at the place of internal protection (Art. 8 (1) Qualification Directive). However, concerning this point the High Administrative Court has already clarified that the applicants are in a position to secure their livelihood with support of Armenian compatriots. These findings of the High Administrative Court do not meet with objections.

Outcome:

The further appeal (Revision) against the decision of the High Administrative Court was dismissed; the applicants were not entitled to refugee status.

Subsequent proceedings:

None