Germany - High Administrative Court Bayern, 3 February 2011, 13a B 10.30394

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
03-02-2011
Citation:
13a B 10.30394
Additional Citation:
asyl.net/M18295
Court Name:
High Administrative Court Bayern
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

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. 

Facts: 

The applicant originates from the province of Parwan in Central Afghanistan. He belongs to the ethnic group of the Hazara and to the religious group of the Shiites. He came to Germany in April 2002 as an unaccompanied minor at the age of 16 and applied for asylum. The application was rejected by the authorities and the rejection became legally valid.

In June 2007, he filed a subsequent asylum application, stating that the security situation in Afghanistan was dramatic. Furthermore, the humanitarian situation was unbearable. In case of return to Afghanistan, he would not be in a position to secure his livelihood. According to his statement, he had no relatives in Afghanistan and he would not be able to find shelter.

The subsequent application was rejected by the authorities and his appeal against the rejection was dismissed by the Administrative Court. The court held, inter alia, that at the time of its decision there was no internal armed conflict taking place in the whole territory of Afghanistan, since the civil war-like armed conflict did not take place in all provinces and in particular not in Kabul.

The applicant submitted a further appeal (Berufung) at the High Administrative Court. He claimed that protection under Art. 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive did not require a nationwide armed conflict.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The High Administrative Court found that the decision of the Administrative Court was lawful. The applicant was not eligible for subsidiary protection. The court stated:

The issue of whether there is an internal armed conflict according to Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive in Afghanistan or in parts of Afghanistan can be left open, since the applicant would not be exposed to a serious and individual threat to life or physical integrity in case of return.

According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, the assumption of such an individual risk requires a sufficient “density of danger”. In order to establish if such a “density of danger” exists, it is necessary to determine the relation between the number of inhabitants with the number of victims in the relevant area. In addition, it is necessary to make an evaluating overview of the number of victims and the severity of casualties (deaths and injuries) among the civilian population.   

The applicant, according to his statement, originates from a town in the province of Parwan. In 2009, the security situation in this province was considered as “moderate” according to the information gathered by the court. There were four security-relevant incidents in 2009, in which eight civilians were killed and 81 civilians were injured. Just one attack on a wedding ceremony accounted for 6 of the fatalities and 64 of the injuries. When calculating the relation between these figures and the number of inhabitants, it turns out that the statistical risk of falling victim to an attack in Parwan in the year 2008 was approximately 0.018%.  

It is true that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated nationwide in 2010. However, it cannot be established that the security situation in the provinces of Parwan and Kabul deteriorated in 2010 or will deteriorate in 2011 to such an extent that practically any civilian would be exposed to a serious and individual threat solely by being present in the relevant territory. 

Furthermore, one cannot assume that there are individual “risk-enhancing” circumstances which would lead to a concentration of risks for the applicant. Such circumstances do not arise from the fact that the applicant belongs to the Hazara minority. According to the information available to the court, the overall situation of the Hazara, who have traditionally been discriminated against, has improved, even if traditional tensions persist and reappear from time to time. The Hazara have always lived in the provinces of Parwar and Kabul and, according to information from UNHCR, many Hazara returned to this region. Neither does the applicant’s membership of the religious group of Shiites constitute an individual “risk-enhancing” circumstance since 15 per cent of the Afghan population are Shiites.

Outcome: 

The further appeal (Berufung) was dismissed. The applicant was not eligible for subsidiary protection or another form of protection.

Subsequent Proceedings : 

Unknown