Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
30/01/2014
The CJEU ruled on the interpretation of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive.

ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2014:39
Input Provided By
EUAA Information and Analysis Sector (IAS)
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Recast Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection)(recast QD)/or QD 2004/83/EC
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, C-285/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:39, 30 January 2014. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=2067
Case history
Other information

Italy, Court of Appeal [Corte di Appello], Applicant v Ministry of the Interior (Ministero dell'Interno), No 604/2020, 15 March 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.

Abstract

According to the CJEU summary:


"On a proper construction of Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, it must be acknowledged that an internal armed conflict exists, for the purposes of applying that provision, if a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confront each other. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian law; nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.


International humanitarian law, on the one hand, and the subsidiary protection regime introduced by Directive 2004/83, on the other, pursue different aims and establish quite distinct protection mechanisms. Accordingly, it is not possible — without disregarding those two distinct areas, the one governed by international humanitarian law and the other by Article 2(e) of Directive 2004/83, read in conjunction with Article 15(c) of that directive — to make eligibility for subsidiary protection conditional upon a finding that the conditions for applying international humanitarian law have been met.


The finding that there is an armed conflict for the purposes of Directive 2004/83 must not be made conditional upon the armed forces involved having a certain level of organisation or upon the conflict lasting for a specific length of time: it is sufficient if the confrontations in which those armed forces are involved give rise to such a high level of indiscriminate violence that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a civilian, if returned to the relevant country or region, would – solely on account of his presence in the territory of that country or region – face a real risk of being subject to a serious and individual threat to his life or person, thereby creating a genuine need for international protection on the part of the applicant."


 


Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
C-285/12
Date of Decision
30/01/2014
Country of Origin
Guinea
Keywords
Assessment of Application
Country of Origin Information
Subsidiary Protection
Source
CURIA