C., a Ukrainian national, applied for asylum in France. Her application was rejected by OFPRA in September 2021.
C. appealed this decision. She claimed she feared persecution and serious harm in her country, due to being threatened by her sister-in-law for reasons related to her late husband’s inheritance. She also stated that due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the security region in the Kharkiv region (where she comes from) can be qualified as a situation of indiscriminate violence.
The National Court of Asylum stated that C.’s declarations on the reasons why she left her country of origin lacked precision and coherence and did not allow to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
The court noted, however, that the current war on Ukraine can be qualified as an international armed conflict, and that Russia’s methods and war tactics have had an impact on the entire Ukrainian territory. The court further specified that the security situation in Ukraine can currently be characterised by a significant level of violence, which differs in degree from region to region in terms of intensity and impact on the civilian population. For this reason, the mere invocation of Ukrainian nationality is not sufficient, by itself, to establish the merits of an application for international protection.
It also specified that between April and July 2022, intense combat was observed, particularly in Mariupol and in the Kharkiv Oblast, which had an impact on civilian population. The court, citing data published by various organisations (UNHCR, IOM, OCHA, ACLED, Human Rights Watch) also stated that almost 91% of all registered security incidents took place in the Southern macro-region of Ukraine, where the Kharkiv Oblast is located, and that 21% of internally displaced persons originate from Kharkiv, which can be considered one of the most impacted areas in the war.
The court concludes that the security situation in the Kharkiv Oblast can be considered as one of indiscriminate violence of exceptional intensity and that C.’s mere presence in the Kharkiv territory would imply a real risk of serious harm. For this reason, the court granted C. subsidiary protection.