Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 14 November 2012, 10 B 22.12

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
14-11-2012
Citation:
10 B 22.12
Additional Citation:
asyl.net M20226
Court Name:
Federal Administrative Court
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Germany - AufenthG (Residence Act) - § 60 Abs. 7
Germany - AufenthG (Residence Act) - section 60(11)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary
Headnote: 

In the context of the prediction of danger required for subsidiary protection, it is the actual target location to which the foreign national intends to return which is relevant in the case of a non-countrywide armed conflict. If the region of origin of the foreign national cannot be considered as a target location due to the danger presented there, he may only be referred to another region of the country according to the requirements of Article 8 of the Qualification Directive.

Facts: 

The Applicant travelled to Germany at the age of 22. He originated from the province ofGhazni. His asylum application was refused in September 2004. The Administrative Court rejected the claim.

In November 2006, the Alaimant presented another asylum application; the authorities refused to carry out further asylum proceedings. The Administrative Court and the High Administrative Court obliged the Respondent to provide an expulsion ban on account of extreme danger to life and limb. These decisions were overturned by the Federal Administrative Court and referred back to the High Administrative Court. In the subsequent proceedings, the High Administrative Court decided that the Applicant should be granted subsidiary protection. The authorities once again applied for a review of this decision by the Federal Administrative Court.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The review was not accepted.

The requirements for subsidiary protection are also fulfilled when aninternal armed conflict is limited to a certain area of national territory and the foreign national is threatened by legally-defined danger in this part of the country. In the context of the prediction of danger required for subsidiary protection, it is the actual target location to which the foreign national intends to return which is relevant in the case of a non-countrywide armed conflict. With regard to the question of which region is to be considered as the target location to which a foreign national could return, this depends neither on which region a neutral observer would reasonably choose nor on which region the foreign national concerned may subjectively choose. The court generally decides that the target location in the case of expulsion should be the region of origin of the claimant to which the latter would typically return. Deviation from the rules may not be granted, however, by the fact that the foreign national is faced with danger in his region of origin which should be covered by subsidiary protection. If the  region of origin of the foreign national cannot be considered as a target location due to the danger presented there, he may only be referred to another region of the country according to the requirements of Article 8 of the Qualification Directive.

The Court of Justice of the European Union refers in the context of the target return location to Article 8 (1) of the Qualification Directive (see decision of 17 February 2009 a.a.O. Rn. 40 first bullet point). The requirements of Article 8 (1) of the Qualification Directive do not have to be fulfilled, however, in the case of potential non-countrywide danger if the target return location is the region of origin of the foreign national, as the latter is not faced with any further or alternative hardships there compared with those which he could expect in another region of his country of origin. In the case of potential danger facing the foreign national in a region which is significant to the latter, it must be established whether the foreign national is able to obtain internal protection in other regions of the country according to Article 8 of the Directive.

Outcome: 

The complaints presented by the authorities were rejected.