Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 5 September 2013, I Up 309/2013
| Country of Decision: | Slovenia |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia |
| Date of decision: | 05-09-2013 |
| Citation: | I Up 309/2013 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Circumstances ceased to exist
Description
A significant and non-temporary change in circumstances as provided for in Article 11(e) or (f) of the Qualification Directive such that a refugee's fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded or as provided for in Article 16 such that the person eligible for subsidiary protection no longer faces a real risk of serious harm, and which may lead to cessation of refugee status or cessation of eligibility for subsidiary protection. |
|
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. |
|
Cessation of protection
Description
Pertaining to thecircumstances in which a person may no longer be considered to be a refugee or to be eligible for subsidiary protection. |
Headnote:
In the procedure for extending subsidiary protection all reasons that the Applicant stated in his application for international protection are relevant and not merely the reasons on the basis of which subsidiary protection was recognised.
Facts:
The Ministry of the Internal (MI) rejected the application for extending subsidiary protection, for it considered that the reasons on the basis of which the subsidiary protection was recognised (the Applicant was a minor and the danger of the journey from Kabul to the Applicant’s home town in the Ghazni province) no longer apply.
Article 106 of the ZMZ stipulates that MI must confirm the reasons for extending subsidiary protection with the reasons given on the original application for international protection, i.e. the application that formed the basis for recognising subsidiary protection. According to the MI merely the reasons that formed the basis for recognising subsidiary protection are relevant in the extension procedure, while other reasons that the applicant might have stated in his application for international protection, but were not considered by the MI when recognising subsidiary protection, should not be taken into account.
MI concluded that the Applicant is now no longer a minor, thus the reason due to which he was recognised subsidiary protection no longer exists. MI also concluded that as an adult the Applicant is capable of organising a safe journey from Kabul to Ghazni or that he could settle in Kabul. The MI did not considered the Plaintiff’s statements as regards the consequence of rape being now even worse than at the time he handed in his application for international protection (the court of locals in the Plaintiff's village decided that the Plaintiff should not return home due to the shame he brought upon the village, if he does return he will be stoned, his family renounced him) for these were not the reasons on the basis of which subsidiary protection was recognised.
Decision & reasoning:
According to the Supreme Court all reasons that the applicant stated in his application for international protection are relevant in the extension procedure for subsidiary protection, and not only those that were accepted as the basis for recognising subsidiary protection.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the MI and confirmed the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Slovenia - Zakon o mednarodni zaščiti (ZMZ) (International Protection Act) |
Follower Cases:
| Follower Cases |
| Slovenia - The Supreme Court of Republic of Slovenia, 16 September 2015, Judgment I Up 112/2015 |