Case Law

This country guidance covers: - Acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct - Country guidance: the conduct of the Ukrainian military in the conflict in the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone (“the ATO”) - Country guidance: conscripts and mobilised reservists in Ukraine

30 November 2020 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Ukraine - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and (3) 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

19 November 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic

Article 9(3) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that there must always be a causal link between the reasons for persecution in Article 10(1) and the acts of persecution defined in Article 9(1), including in cases where an applicant for international protection seeks to rely on Article 9(2)(e) of that directive. – Where an applicant for asylum seeks to invoke Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95 as the act of persecution, reliance upon that provision does not automatically establish that the person concerned has a well-founded fear of persecution because he holds a political opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) thereof. It is for the competent national authorities, acting under the supervision of the courts, to establish whether there is a causal link for the purposes of that directive. In conducting that assessment the following factors may be relevant: whether the applicant’s home country is conducting a war; the nature and methods employed by the military authorities in such a war; the availability of country reports documenting matters such as whether recruitment for military service is by conscription; whether the status of conscientious objector is recognised under national law and, if so, the procedures for establishing such status; the treatment of those subject to conscription who refuse to perform military service; the existence or absence of alternatives to military service; and the applicant’s personal circumstances, including his age.

28 May 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic

The contested finding therefore lacks a conclusive reason why there is no persecution relevant to asylum, in the absence of a discussion of the dangers that threaten the complainant due to the attempted forced recruitment, which has been found to be credible. Likewise, in connection with the examination of the requirements for the granting of the status of subsidiary protection, there is no comprehensible reason for the statement that the complainant is not at risk from the Taliban in Mazar-e Sharif and that a return there is safe and reasonable while the UNHCR guidelines basically assume that there is no internal flight alternative in Afghanistan for people who are persecuted by the Taliban

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Non-state agents of persecution | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

30 October 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: New Zealand - Türkiye

10 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

17 August 2017 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Forced labour - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland