Case summaries
Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive only offers protection in exceptional circumstances where there is a high level of indiscriminate violence.
Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be engaged in suicide cases where the fear giving rise to the risk of suicide is not objectively well-founded.
The Court replaced the decision of the OIN to allow the Applicant to remain on non-refoulement grounds (i.e. tolerated status), with a decision to grant the Applicant subsidiary protection status on the grounds that he would be at risk of serious harm on return to his home country (indiscriminate violence).
Children who were born in France and who claim a fear of persecution because they refuse to be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) in their country of origin fall within the scope of subsidiary protection. The effective implementation of this protection requires that the child is not separated from her mother and that the mother benefits from the same protection.
The case concerns the extent to which decision-makers should take into account a change of circumstances or situation in the country of origin.
In its assessment of real risk of serious harm the CALL took into consideration the psychological circumstances of the applicant. The CALL considered that the seriousness of the applicant’s past traumatic experiences (as a child soldier) had left such psychological marks on him that a future forced enrolment in the army would be psychologically unbearable for him and would, in his case, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The question as to whether or not an armed conflict existed has to be answered according to humanitarian law (common Art 3 of the Geneva Convention and the second additional protocol).
Women who want to escape from a forced marriage, whose attitude is perceived by whole or part of the society of their country of origin as an infringement of the applicable customs and laws, and who therefore face a risk of persecution against which the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide protection, must be considered as members of a social group in the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention; when these conditions are not fulfilled, in particular when their behavior is not perceived as an infringement of the social order, these women nevertheless face the risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment and should therefore be granted subsidiary protection.
The court gave guidance for assessing whether the risk of suicide on removal would engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human rights.