Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
| Publisher | Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court |
| Publication Date | 12 November 2018 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:13570 |
| Other Languages / Attachments | Original decision |
| Cite as | Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:13570, Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court, 12 November 2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,NTL_HDC,5bf831d34.html [accessed 6 October 2022] |
| 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. |
The Netherlands – District Court rules in a case concerning the asylum claim of a Ukrainian separatist
The applicant, a Ukrainian national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands, claiming that she was accused of being a separatist, having also been subjected to sexual and gender-based violence. Despite finding that the applicant's statements were credible, the domestic authorities rejected her claim, as Ukraine is designed as a safe country of origin in The Netherlands, with the only exception being the region of Crimea and some parts of the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk.
The District Court disagreed with the authorities, noting that the applicant's vulnerability should have been a central point in the assessment of an internal flight alternative. The authorities also disregarded the applicant's individual circumstances, such as the fact that she is a single woman from a separatist region and that she claimed having been designated as a 'separatist'. According to the Court, the latter could mean that she could also face risks in parts of the country that are generally considered safe, a possibility that the authorities failed to assess.
Similarly, the Court considered the applicant to be an Internally Displaced Person, a group that lived under difficult circumstances in Ukraine, often unable to access primary health care and psychosocial support. Lastly, the applicant's inability to rely on family support and a medical report on the applicant's mental health situation were also found to have been summarily disregarded by the authorities.
The Court annulled the contested decision, stating that the authorities did not duly investigate the facts of the case and failed to provide sufficient reasoning.
Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update of 23 November 2018
