Case summaries
The situation in Logar province in Afghanistan can be characterised as an internal armed conflict. Therefore, the applicant as a member of the civilian population is at a significant risk in terms of Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive.
This case concerned the appropriate manner in which an application for subsidiary protection is to be decided where there may be at least an implicit claim of a “serious and individual threat” to the applicant by reason of indiscriminate violence. The Court found that Article 15(c) of the Directive does not impose a free-standing obligation on the Minister to investigate a possible armed conflict situation, it is for the applicant to make this claim and to make submissions and offer evidence establishing that he is from a place where there is a situation of international of internal armed conflict, and that he is at risk of serious harm by reason of indiscriminate violence.
Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.
Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.
In this case the Tribunal sought to apply the guidance in Elgafaji on Art 15(c) and give country guidance on Afghanistan.
The decision of the asylum authority was annulled on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that an internal protection alternative existed.
This case concerned the criteria that needed to be fulfilled in order to establish the existence of an internal armed conflict. It was held that in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, at the time of this decision, a state of internal armed conflict was found to exist without an internal protection alternative. The applicant was therefore considered in need of protection.
The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metropolitan Court ruled that the OIN was obliged to assess conditions for subsidiary protection and serious harm even if the applicant was not found credible.
A serious and individual threat to life and limb may result from a general risk in the context of an armed conflict if the risk is enhanced because of the applicant’s individual circumstances or from an extraordinary situation which is characterised by such a high degree of risk that practically any civilian would be exposed to a serious and individual threat simply by his or her presence in the affected region.
The requirement of an individualisation of the threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection is inversely proportional to the degree of indiscriminate violence which characterises the armed conflict.