Netherlands - AJDCoS, 29 April 2011, 201010327/1/V2

The applicant, a woman from Kosovo, was abused by her ex-husband. She claimed that the (local) authorities could not offer her any protection, and that her only relatives living in Kosovo, an aunt and an uncle, could not offer her shelter or protection either.

The applicant’s appeal against the refusal to grant her an asylum permit was allowed by the district court Den Bosch (19-09-2010, case nr. AWB 10/34205). The district court considered that the respondent (the Minister for Immigration and Asylum) had firstly, insufficiently examined the claim and secondly, based his decision on the basis that the (local) authorities could offer protection to the applicant. In a further appeal, the Minister complained that the district court had wrongfully ignored the fact that the respondent had partly based his decision on the fact that the applicant could have internally relocated to avoid the persecution from her ex-husband by settling elsewhere in Kosovo.

The Council of State upheld the respondent’s decision. They considered that the district court had wrongly failed to examine whether the respondent’s view that the applicant could have relocated in order to avoid persecution from her ex-husband by settling elsewhere in Kosovo, could amount to the respondent’s decision being deemed lawful and therefore the applicant not being eligible for protection.

The court highlighted that Dutch policy stipulates that it is expected that an alien relocates within his country of origin by moving to a region where he or she is not in danger, and that:

i. the safety is durable;

ii. the alien has safe access to that region;

iii. the alien can settle in that region and is able to live his; life under circumstances considered normal in that region.

"(...)On the one hand internal protection can be determined for all asylum seekers from that country or for a specific group of the population. [...] Internal protection can also be determined in individual cases. Subsequently, the applicant must make it plausible that internal protection is not present in his case and that he cannot be expected to settle elsewhere in the country.”

The Council of State ruled that, despite the applicant’s claim that she could not settle with her family nor with anyone else, the applicant had establish to the relevant standard of proof why she could not be expected to settle independently in another part of her country of origin.