UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
Opinion of Advocate General Pikamae, delivered on 11 February 2021, Case C‑901/19, CF, DN v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Higher Administrative Court, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) as follows: 1. Article 15(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), 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 a national practice whereby a finding of serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict, within the meaning of that provision, can be made, in a case where that civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her circumstances, only if the ratio between the number of casualties in the area in question and the total number of individuals making up the population of that area reaches a fixed threshold. 2. In order to verify the level of the degree of indiscriminate violence of the armed conflict, for the purposes of determining whether there is a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95, it is necessary to carry out a comprehensive assessment, both quantitative and qualitative in nature, of all relevant facts characterising that conflict, based on the collection of objective, reliable and up-to-date information including, in particular, the geographical scope of the situation of indiscriminate violence, the actual destination of the applicant in the event that he or she is returned to the relevant country or region, the intensity of the armed confrontations, the duration of the conflict, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved, the number of civilians killed, injured or displaced as a result of the fighting, and the nature of the methods or tactics of warfare employed by the parties to the conflict. 24 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
Statement on the Interpretation and Application of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive
Issued in the context of the preliminary ruling reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 – Federal Republic of Germany v XT (C-507/19)
18 August 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C‑238/19 EZ v Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative Court, Hanover, Germany))
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 |
Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, delivered on 18 April 2013, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid
18 April 2013 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Germany |
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Urteil vom 10 Juli 2012 - 1 BvL 2/10
10 July 2012 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Complementary forms of protection - EU Qualification Directive - Residence permits / Residency - Rights of non-citizens | Countries: Germany |
Federal Administrative Court, Decision of 17 November 2011, BVerwG 10 C 13.10
17 November 2011 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Germany - Iraq |
UNHCR letter to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany relating to the case 1 BvL 3/11 - Schreiben an das Bundesverfassungsgericht
20 May 2011 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Federal Republic of Germany v Kaveh Puid (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany))
5 January 2011 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Germany |
Salahadin Abdulla and Others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
2 March 2010 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - Complementary forms of protection - EU Qualification Directive - Effective protection - Safe country of origin | Countries: Germany - Iraq |
UNHCR public statement in relation to cases Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B and D pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union
July 2009 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |