Germany - Administrative Court Berlin, 9 June 2011, 33 K 285.10 A
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
09-06-2011
Citation:
33 K 285.10 A
Additional Citation:
asyl.net/M18770
Court Name:
Administrative Court Berlin
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 2 > Art 2 (c)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 6 > Art 6 (c)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 6
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.1
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.1 (d)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.1 (e)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.3
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 6 > Art 6 (c)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 6
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.1
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.1 (d)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.1 (e)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 10 > Art 10.2
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 9 > Art 9.3
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
It is in principle possible for men to be persecuted on account of their gender. However, classifying the punishment for extramarital sex in Afghanistan as persecution on account of both membership of the group of men and the group of women would cover the entire society and renders the definition meaningless. Therefore, the applicant was not granted refugee status but his deportation was prohibited under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act / Art 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive.
Facts:
The applicant is an Afghan citizen of Tajik ethnicity and of the Islamic faith. He came to Germany in May 2009 and applied for asylum. This application was rejected by the authorities. However, his deportation was prohibited under Section 60 (2) Residence Act / Art 15 (b) Qualification Directive. The applicant appealed this decision regarding the refusal of refugee status under Section 60 (1) Residence Act. He explained that in case of return to Afghanistan, he would face persecution because he had extramarital sex with a woman who is now, after his escape, his wife and who was granted refugee status.
Decision & Reasoning:
The court stated:
The applicant is not eligible for refugee status. However, the authorities rightly prohibited his deportation under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act. The threats claimed by the applicant and the murder he fears do not constitute persecution owing to his gender. Though persecution of men owing to their gender is in principle possible, the court holds that this is not the case here. One cannot establish such persecution due to the fact that the applicant’s present wife was granted refugee status for this particular reason. Firstly, the situation of his wife after the extramarital sex was much more severe than his: she was also supposed to undergo a forced marriage. Due to the discrimination against women in Afghanistan, especially in Herat, it would have been she who would be blamed for bringing shame on the family. Secondly, according to the information available to the court the risk for women of becoming victims of severe human rights violations for the alleged violation of their husband’s or family’s honour is very high, while men are punished - though infringing human rights - “only” in cases where extramarital sex actually took place.
Classifying the punishment for extramarital sex in Afghanistan as persecution on account of both membership of the group of men and the group of women would cover the entire society, rendering the definition meaningless. Subsuming persecution under the aspect of membership of the particular group of “men who are accused of extramarital sex” is also impossible because they do not share a common characteristic noticeable by the surrounding society.
Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed.
