The applicant, an Afghan national, submitted an application for international protection in France. The OFPRA refused to grant him refugee status and granted him subsidiary protection instead. The applicant appealed against this decision. He requested the CNDA to annul the OFPRA’s decision in that it only granted him subsidiary protection, and to grant him refugee status. He argued he was facing serious risks of persecution by the Taliban upon return to Afghanistan, on account of denunciations to the former authorities and of his westernisation.

The OFPRA requested the court to reject the appeal on the basis that the applicant’s fear of persecution was not well founded. Besides, the OFPRA requested the CNDA to exclude the applicant from subsidiary protection in light of his indictment for serious non-political crimes, and threats to public order as well as public and State security.

Regarding the claims related to the denunciations of Taliban men, the court found that the applicant’s declarations did not sufficiently establish that his leaving the country was linked to the events he described. Regarding his westernisation, the court, building on EUAA country guidance and different country-of-origin information sources (including from the EUAA), ruled that the applicant’s mere journey to and stay in Europe did not demonstrate the existence of a westernised profile. The court added that the applicant’s declarations could not lead to the conclusion that he had such a profile either, nor that he was at risk of persecution by the Taliban for this reason upon return to Afghanistan. Consequently, the CNDA rejected the applicant’s request to be granted refugee protection.

On the applicant’s exclusion from subsidiary protection, the court ruled that public entities cannot request judges to take measures, which they can take themselves. Thus, the court also rejected the OFPRA’s request.