Germany - High Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg, 25 October 2006, A 3 S 46/06

The court held that an applicant who has already been subject to persecution benefits from a facilitated standard of proof under national legislation as well as under the Qualification Directive.

The Court, in favour of the applicants, assumed that the applicants had been subject to such persecution in the form of regional group persecution before they left Chechnya.

However, the court concluded that they are not eligible for refugee protection, since they could live safely in other parts of Russia. The court found:

According to Art 8.2 of the Qualification Directive, the general circumstances prevailing in that part of the country have to be considered, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant. In order to define the term ‘personal circumstances’, Art 4.3 (c) of the Qualification Directive assists, which requires the assessment of the applicant’s individual position and personal circumstances, including factors such as background, gender and age.

Next, it has to be established if the applicant can reasonably be expected to take up residence in a different part of his country of origin. This requires that he can at least make his living at the place of refuge, if he makes reasonable efforts. These explanations correspond with consistent case law. According to the Federal Administrative Court, persons who are able to work, can make their living at a place of refuge, at least after overcoming initial problems, if they can achieve what they need for survival by their own income, even if the work is less attractive and falls short of their education, or by support from other people. Suitable employment includes activities for which there is no demand in the general labour market, that do not correspond to traditional job descriptions, since for example they do not require special skills, and that are practices only temporarily, for example in order to cover short-term needs.However, making a living by engaging in degrading or criminal activities is not reasonable. Furthermore, in such circumstances it is not clear that the applicant would be furnished with permanent legal residence.

Based on these principles, the applicants can be reasonably expected to take up residence in another part of the Russian Federation, where they are protected against persecution and can secure a decent minimum standard of living.

The court is convinced that the second named applicant, who possesses a new valid Russian internal passport, will be able to find accommodation for herself and her family in Chechen settlements and, by this, fulfill the legal requirements for registration.

Despite all the difficulties members of the Chechen ethnic group face when applying for registration, they may be registered, though in many cases only after intervention of NGOs, members of Parliament or other influential persons or by means of corruption. In her efforts in this regard, the second named applicant can rely on her husband’s support. Even though he does not possess a valid internal passport and, therefore, does not fulfill the requirements for registration, he will successfully obtain accommodation in the male dominated Chechen diaspora and find for himself employment at least in the so-called “shadow economy”, which will enable him to secure a decent standard of living for himself and his family. It is immaterial in the present case, if he will get his own registration, which is rather improbable without a valid internal passport, and if it would be reasonable for him to return to Chechnya first, in order to obtain a new internal passport.