Ra 2019/14/0153
| Publisher | Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) |
| Publication Date | 27 May 2019 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | ECLI:AT:VWGH:2019:RA2019140153.L00 |
| Other Languages / Attachments | Decision in German |
| Cite as | Ra 2019/14/0153 , ECLI:AT:VWGH:2019:RA2019140153.L00, Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), 27 May 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,AUT_AHAC,61ef11c44.html [accessed 5 October 2022] |
| Comments | Cessation decisions can be based on an available IFA in the country of origin. Generally, changes after the last extension of subsidiary protection status are relevant to determine the change of circumstances. Attaining the age of majority constitutes a relevant change of individual circumstances. |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
Case summary
Supreme Administrative Court, Ra 2019/14/0153, 27 May 2019
The case concerned an Afghan national, whose subsidiary protection status was withdrawn, based on changes in the country of origin (the availability of an IFA) and changed individual circumstances (because the individual attained the age of majority).
The Supreme Administrative Court had to examine whether or not changes that happened prior to the last extension of subsidiary protection status, may also be considered as a change in circumstances at a later stage. The Court held that while generally changes after the last extension are to be assessed, this does not mean that in the course of the overall assessment of changed circumstances the authority and court are to disregard any additional changes prior to the latest extension.
In addition, the Court held that cessation decisions can also be based on an available IFA in the country of origin. In this context, the Court referred to para 17 (Partial Cessation) of the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status under Art. 1 C (5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the "Ceased Circumstances" Clauses), and in particular to the following sentence: "In contrast, changes in the refugee's country of origin affecting only part of the territory should not, in principle, lead to cessation of refugee status." The Court argued that the wording "in principle" would allow for exceptions and that its decision regarding a subsidiary protection holder who had reached the age of majority since the first decision was, thus, in line with UNHCR's Guidelines.
