Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
RO: County Court finds that fear of persecution can be based on acts targeting those in the same group and not personally the applicant

Input Provided By
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR);
Romania, County Court [Tribunal], A.M. (Bangladesh) v Radauti Regional Centre for accommodation and procedures for asylum applicants (Centrul Regional de Cazare si Proceduri pentru Solicitantii de Azil din Radauti), judgment no. 10/2020, 11 March 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

The applicant, A.M., is an unaccompanied minor from Bangladesh who requested asylum on 26 April 2019. The General Inspectorate of Immigration (GII) rejected the applicant's request for international protection due to a lack of credibilty. The GII held that, although the applicant alleged a risk of persecution based on his father's political activities, the applicant stated during the interview that he did not know what those activities were and could not give further details. The GII further held that there were contradictions in his statements, that he was never personally the target of persecution in Bangladesh, and that after he lodged his request for asylum he repeatedly left the accomodation centre without approval, which showed his lack of interest to received international protection. The applicant appealed the GII decision. By decision of 21 October 2019, the Radauti District Court rejected the applicant's appeal and the applicant lodged a second appeal.

The Suceava County Court allowed the appeal and granted asylum status to the applicant. The court referred to the UNHCR Handbook, highlighting that a request for asylum may refer to persecution suffered by people from the same group as the applicant, which can prove the eventuality that the applicant may be exposed to a risk of persecution. The court further looked at country of origin information and to the European Parliament Resolution 2018/2927(RSP) regarding the situation of human rights in Bangladesh. The court held that inadvertencies in the applicant's statements may also be due to his young age, linguistic difficulties in communicating but that overall the minor made a genuine effort in substantiating his allegations.

Country of Decision
Court Name
RO: County Court [Tribunal]
Case Number
judgment no. 10/2020
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Assessment of Application
Country of Origin Information
Unaccompanied minors