The case concerned an applicant who received a negative decision on 17 December 2021 and appealed against it arguing that there were procedural shortcomings because an EUAA officer who took part in the interview prepared a negative recommendation/report on her case, for the Asylum Office. The applicant alleged that her application was not correctly examined, that the EUAA officer lacked training and skills, that the officer's participation in the interview should have been jointly with an officer of the Asylum Service.

The Administrative Court of International Protection (IPAC) reiterated that according to Article 13 (1A) of the Refugee Law, experts from other Member States, as recruited by EASO/EUAA may temporarily participate in the conduct of the interviews. The IPAC rejected this aspect and also rejected the complaint that an EASO officer would not be authorised to issue  recommendations or reports in a case. The court stated that the Operational Plan which covers assistance from EUAA to Cyprus specifically mentions that: “authorized EASO officials are assisting in the examination of the case. EASO officers act for the Asylum Service and the decision is taken by the Cyprus Asylum Service”. The court also referred to Articles 10, 13 and 18 of the EASO Regulation.

The court noted that there have been relevant operational plans for the period of 2020, for 2021 as well as for the period of 2022-2024 between EASO/EUAA and the Republic of Cyprus. Consequently, the court considered that at the disputed time of the interview of the applicant and the date of preparation of the report/presentation by the EASO officer, there was a relevant operational plan in force. Thus, the provision of assistance and support to the Asylum Service by an EASO officer in the context of examination of the application by the Asylum Service, took place within the framework of existing national and European legislation, while the operational plan had already been signed and entered into force between EASO and the Republic of Cyprus.

On the substance of the case, the IPAC noted that the applicant is from the NW region of Cameroon, that she claimed to have left for security reasons but was unable to provide sufficient details on specific events. The court noted that the report/recommendation of EASO, the applicant’s claims regarding her personal information, her country of origin and her profile were accepted, while her claim that she was a victim of rape by Ambazonians because she is a law student was rejected, but also that her father died from a stray bullet and their family home burned down. Although the internal and external reliability of the applicant was not documented for the above claim, an assessment was made of the situation in her country of origin and habitual residence for the purposes of providing her with subsidiary protection status. The EASO officer concluded that she would not face any danger in case of her return.

The court analysed the facts and elements of the case to conclude that the assessment was correct, and that the applicant could not be given the benefit of the doubt. The facts of her case in relation to the information in the file and her objections do not show that she meets the subjective and objective criteria that can establish the fact that she left her country of origin and does not wish to return to it due to a justified fear of persecution. Also, by referring to the conclusions in the CJEU judgement of Meki Elgafaji and Noor Elgafaji v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), C-465/07, 17 February 2009, the court noted, also in view of country-of-origin information, that the applicant was not eligible for subsidiary protection.

The court concluded that the investigation was correct and complete and rejected the appeal.