EDAL case summaries
The degree of indiscriminate violence in certain parts of Iraq was such as to expose persons to a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive merely due to their presence there.
However, other areas of the country (including Baghdad City) did not meet this threshold, and as such, Iraqi nationals could be forcibly returned to these areas as it would not generally be unreasonable or unduly harsh for them to internally relocate there.
The actual risk of inhuman treatment or punishment by the Taliban because of desertion from one of their forced recruitment training camps can justify a deportation ban according to clause 60 (2) of the Residence Act (Article 15(b) of the Qualification Directive) in the case of Afghanistan.
Targeted criminal violence is defined in Article 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive (clause 60 (2) of the Residence Act) but not in Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive (clause 60 (7) p. 2 of the Residence Act), because in this context there is no specific risk of an internal armed...
The real risk of suffering the type of serious harm envisaged in Article 15(b) of the Qualification Directive (torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) may be established by an Applicant who proves that he is a member of a group systematically targeted for such harm and who does not put forward any other circumstances relating to his individual case.
The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict.
Country of origin information can verify a situation in which the risk of persecution can exceptionally be considered to be proved without substantiating the personal circumstances of the applicant. The danger of the harm is real, and complies with the requirements of subsidiary protection.
This case concerned the removal of a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity to Sri Lanka. The Court held that he belonged to a specific group all of whose members were at risk of ill-treatment and so could not be returned. The Applicant did not need to show that he was more at risk than others in this group. The case concerned a situation of generalized violence in Sri Lanka.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Indiscriminate violence filterIndiscriminate violence
- (-) Remove Individual assessment filterIndividual assessment
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Subsidiary Protection 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Individual threat 3
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Country of origin information 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Real risk 2
- Serious harm 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Internal protection 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Sri Lanka 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 2
- Belgium 1
- Hungary 1
- United Kingdom 1