France - Council of State, 3 July 2009, Ofpra vs. Mr. A., n°320295
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. The requirement of an individualisation of the threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection is inversely proportional to the degree of indiscriminate violence which character...
What the court decided
The Council of State held that under Article L.712‑1 c) Ceseda (implementing Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive), the requirement that an applicant demonstrate an individualised threat is relaxed when indiscriminate violence in an armed conflict reaches such a high level that a civilian’s mere presence in the country or region creates a real risk of serious harm. Applying this standard, it confirmed that the CNDA’s finding of generalised violence in eastern Sri Lanka was sufficient to infer a direct and individual threat to the applicant without proof of personal targeting. Consequently, the Court rejected Ofpra’s request to quash the CNDA decision, thereby upholding the grant of subsidiary protection.
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.