Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
07/08/2023
DE: The Regional Administrative Court of Halle granted refugee status to a homosexual Georgian national finding that the Georgian authorities are unwilling or unable to effectively protect LGBTIQ-persons

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Reference
Germany, Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht], Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), No 5 A 374/22 , 07 August 2023. 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=3774
Case history
Other information
Abstract

The case concerned a homosexual Georgian national who applied for asylum in Germany. In his asylum interview with the BAMF, the applicant stated that in Georgia he was subjected to massive hostility and discrimination by his family, particularly his brother, on the grounds of his sexual orientation. His brother treated him with hostility, physically abused and threatened him with forced heterosexual marriage to a woman. The applicant also stated that his entire family had turned away from him after having gained knowledge of his homosexuality. Furthermore, the applicant stated that he lost his job twice within a short period of time after his brother had disclosed his homosexuality to his employers and that he was threatened at his work. The asylum application was rejected by the BAMF. The BAMF stated that due to comprehensive legislation for the protection of the LGBTIQ-community, there was no collective persecution of homosexuals in Georgia. The BAMF further stated that the applicant could get protection through the Georgian police.


The applicant appealed against this decision to the Regional Administrative Court of Halle. The Administrative Court of Halle ruled that country-of-origin information on the situation in Georgia showed that LGBTIQ-persons were subject to rejection, discrimination, and physical violence in Georgia. Members of the LGBTIQ-community were often exposed to discrimination and bullying in the workplace or had no access to the labor market. In combination with the rejection by family members, this situation could result in a risk of living below the subsistence level. The Administrative Court of Halle further stated that country-of-origin information on Georgia showed that homosexual and transgender people were often exposed to domestic violence and abuse by family members and that coming out often resulted in the entire family turning away.


Furthermore, LGBTIQ-persons were massively restricted in their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Based on the above, the Administrative Court of Halle ruled that in view of the strong homophobic attitude of the Georgian population, homosexual and transgender people are to be regarded as a social group in accordance with Section 3b paragraph 1 no 4 of the Asylum Act.


Furthermore, the Administrative Court of Halle ruled that, based on country-of-origin information, the Georgian state was neither willing nor able to effectively protect homosexual and transgender people from non-state persecution. Although de jure there was comprehensive legislation to protect the LBTIQ-community, de facto the effective implementation of this legislation was not guaranteed. According to the court’s considerations the stigmatization and discrimination of LGBTIQ-persons by the Georgian public and the lack of investigation and prosecution of these acts constituted a systemic protection problem of the Georgian authorities. The Administrative Court of Halle further held that no internal flight alternative was apparently available because the persecution was not limited to individual parts of Georgia and the state's willingness to provide protection was lacking throughout the entire national territory. Based on the above, the Administrative Court of Halle overturned the BAMF's decision and ruled that the applicant was entitled to refugee status based on his homosexuality.


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht]
Case Number
No 5 A 374/22
Date of Decision
07/08/2023
Country of Origin
Georgia
Keywords
Actors of protection
Country of Origin Information
Gender identity / Gender expression / Sexual Orientation / SOGIESC
Internal protection alternative/ flight alternative
Non-state actors
Refugee Protection
Source
asyl.net
RETURN