You are here
Home › Indiscriminate violence ›EDAL case summaries
An internal armed conflict, characterised by armed clashes, prevails throughout the whole territory of Afghanistan. The situation in the Kabul region and the city itself constitutes indiscriminate violence resulting from this internal armed conflict.
Transferring a family to Finland under the Dublin Regulation where their asylum application and subsequent appeals have been rejected is unlawful on account of the humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan.
Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.
The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.
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 internal protection alternative is not only possible when the security situation in the proposed area is so poor that the threshold of serious harm would be met, but also when the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to settle down in a designated area. In order to establish the latter it is not enough to hypothetically assume that the applicant can arrange the housing by himself and take care of his social and economic security or that as a young man he could find work and survive. It is necessary to determine whether in the place of IPA, economic and social existence is assured...
The applicant’ s description of a situation which gives rise to a risk to his life or physical integrity, deriving from gender-based violence, social or religious group violence, family/domestic violence, which is accepted, tolerated or not tackled by the State, imposes an ex proprio motu further investigation upon the Judiciary. The latter entails an investigation into the control of violence described by the applicant in terms of whether it is widespread, whether there is impunity for the acts as well as the State’s response
In light of a deterioration of safety conditions in Iraq since June 10th 2014 members of the Yazidi religious group living in the province of Ninive (Mosul) are in danger of persecution solely on the basis of their religious beliefs, from which they can’t reasonably seek effective protection from the Iraqi state nor from any other organization, which could offer protection. Furthermore they can’t now, nor will they for the foreseeable future be able to evade persecution by seeking refuge in safe havens within country boarders.
By not considering country information submitted by the applicant, the Slovenian Migration Office did not establish all relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it. The Office had not clearly and precisely explained which reasons it considered as decisive in determining that the degree of indiscriminate violence in the applicant’s country of origin did not reach such a level that the applicant would be subjected to a serious and individual threat to his life or person in the event of return to his country of origin.
On the basis of personal circumstances and improvements in the general security situation in Mogadishu, the Applicant would not be at risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3 ECHR if deported from Sweden to Somalia.
In order for subsidiary protection to be provided, the law requires not just a fear but a well-founded fear. This means that a fear of persecution must be real and not fictional. If the genuine nature of an appellant’s fear were to be accepted on the basis of an outline provided to the Respondent in proceedings to extend subsidiary protection, it would lead to a situation where almost all nationals of countries in which any kind of conflict was taking place - even a local one not directly affecting most of the population - would have to be regarded, without further grounds for acceptance...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Indiscriminate violence filterIndiscriminate violence
- Subsidiary Protection 54
- Internal armed conflict 35
- Serious harm 34
- Individual threat 26
- Armed conflict 16
- Internal protection 14
- Real risk 14
- Country of origin information 12
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 11
- Credibility assessment 10
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 10
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 6
- Individual assessment 6
- Personal circumstances of applicant 6
- Revocation of protection status 6
- Political Opinion 5
- Religion 5
- Burden of proof 4
- Circumstances ceased to exist 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Membership of a particular social group 4
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 4
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Return 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- International armed conflict 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Protection 2
- Race 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Torture 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Delay 1
- Detention 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request to take back 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iraq 18
- Afghanistan 15
- Somalia 13
- Sri Lanka 5
- Nigeria 3
- Russia 3
- Syria 3
- Colombia 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Burundi 1
- Kenya 1
- Unknown 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 17
- France 12
- United Kingdom 7
- Netherlands 5
- Belgium 3
- Finland 3
- Hungary 3
- Spain 3
- Ireland 2
- Italy 2
- Slovenia 2
- Austria 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Slovakia 1
- Sweden 1