DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold. 2. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there is a ‘serious and individual threat’, within the meaning of that provision, a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required. 10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Generalized violence - International protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
case nos. 17LY02181 – 17LY02184
situation in region and Kabul is likely to be qualified as situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict in light of subsidiary protection. In these conditions, the prefect had erred in applying the law by deciding that, instead of authorising to register the application in France, the applicant be transferred to Finland where this country had already rejected the asylum application, expelled and issue an entry ban against the applicant. 13 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour administrative | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Generalized violence - Internal armed conflict - Refoulement | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland - France |
Décision N° 17045561, 9 March 2018
Afghanistan: In Kabul, a high-intensity situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict allows granting a civilian the benefit of subsidiary protection under Article L. 712-1 (c) of the CESEDA. 9 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Generalized violence | Countries: Afghanistan - France |
N° 401585
16 October 2017 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Generalized violence - Right to life | Countries: Afghanistan - France |
AATA Case No. 1319759
10 May 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Flight by land, air or sea - Freedom of religion - Generalized violence - Hazara - Religious discrimination - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia |