Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 6 June 2013, I Up 199/2013

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
06-06-2013
Citation:
I Up 199/2013
Court Name:
Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Slovenia - Zakon o mednarodni zaščiti (ZMZ) (International Protection Act)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

The Respondent's evidence on the safety situation in Kabul and the possibilities for seeking employment, finding somewhere to live and establishing social networks provided the grounds for the Respondent's decision as well as for the judgment by the court of first enstance, both of which stated that the Applicant, in the event that he returned to Kabul, in his country of origin, would be provided with internal protection from serious harm, and that he is thus not entitled to subsidiary protection in the Republic of Slovenia.

Facts: 

The Ministry of Interior (MI) found that if the Applicant returned to district of Behsud I in the Wardak province, he could be exposed to a real risk of suffering serious harm. However, in the opinion of the MI and the court of first instance the Applicant would, upon his return to his country of origin, be provided with internal protection from serious harm in Kabul and he is thus not entitled to subsidiary protection or refuge status.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the Appellant stated that the possibility for resettlement within the country of origin needs to be realistic in the sense that it is not too much to expect to travel to a safe part of the country, where he will be accepted and will be given the opportunity to lead a safe life. In his case this condition was not fulfilled. If he returns he will arrive at Kabul by plane. However, as he knows nobody there,  nobody will be there waiting for him. He quoted the report by the Danish Immigration Service's fact finding mission to Kabul, Afghanistan, from which it can be concluded that he will not be able to live a safe life upon his arrival in Kabul. He is also ill. Because he was of the opinion that he will be cured by the medication he was taking, he failed to mention this previously. As he is ill, it will also be impossible for him to establish a social network because nobody will accept an ill man. He has nobody in Afghanistan, he will not be able to perform casual work, nor will he be able to hide from his enemies.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Supreme Court agreed with the judgment of the court of first enstance which found that the documentation provided by the Respondent, which came from various sources (the report of the Danish fact finding mission which is based on various sources, the December 2010 Report of the Federal Asylum Office of the Republic of Austria), indicates that the safety situation in Kabul is relatively good, that Kabul is relatively safe compared to numerous other towns in Afghanistan and that the general situation in large cities is safer than in rural areas. These reports also show that the Applicant would not be persecuted in Kabul because he is a Hazar.

On the basis of various reports, also the UNHCR report amongst others, the court of first instance rightfully found that, regardless of his lack of professional qualifications and that he has no relatives in Kabul, the Applicant has a good chance of finding employment,  creating a life for himself and establishing social networks as he is a young, healthy single male. The Applicant's argument regarding his poor health could also not lead to a change in the decision, as he introduced this issue only during his appeal. The reasons he stated for such a late revelation of this circumstance could not be accepted. There are no previous cases in which it would be ruled that it is not safe for an applicant to return to Kabul merely because of his personal circumstances, due to lack of education and a non-existent social network. According to the Supreme Court, an internal  displacement to Kabul represents a reasonable alternative and single men can survive there without the support of their family. Young men, even those with no education, have better chances of finding employment and surviving in Kabul.

Outcome: 

The Supreme Court rejected the Applicant's appeal and confirmed the contested judgment of the court of irst instance.

Other sources cited: 

The report by the Danish Immigration Service's fact finding mission to Kabul, Afghanistan, May 2012;  report by the  Federal Asylum Office of the Republic of Austria, December 2010