The applicant, a national of Ukraine, from the oblast of Poltava, requested international protection in France. By decision of 23 August 2021, the OFPRA rejected the request and the applicant appealed before the CNDA. She argued that she would be subjected to persecution by private parties in the country of origin, and also on account of the security situation in Ukraine.

The court first noted that the risk of persecution as alleged by the applicant was not proven. The court then examined the situation in the oblast of Poltava, where the applicant originated.

The court noted that the Poltava oblast located in the central macro-region of Ukraine had, between 24 February and 4 November 2022, only 0.4% of the number of security incidents noted by ACLED and that the center of the country experienced a very low number of displacements of civilian populations, with 1% of the total number of displaced people 20% of displaced people returned in the central region.

The court further highlighted that the Poltava oblast suffered several attacks targeting both the military and civilian infrastructure of the region, notably in the months of April, May and August 2022, according to an article in the newspaper Le Monde of 27 June 2022 entitled: “Shopping center of Kremenchuk, Ukraine: a "war crime" for the G7, while eighteen people died in a Russian strike". The court then observed that this oblast was characterized by a relatively low number of security incidents, 36 over the period from 24 February and 4 November 2022, according to ACLED data consulted on 28 November 2022, or 0.13% of the total. This indicator, like that of the number of civilian victims, has remained since the start of the Russian invasion at a level significantly lower than that observed in the other oblasts of the “macro-regions” of the East and South but also of the North and from Kyiv.

From all these aspects, the CNDA concluded that it was not necessary to consider that the international armed conflict in Ukraine generated, as of the date of this decision, in the Poltava Oblast, a situation of indiscriminate violence that would reach such a level that there would be serious and proven grounds to believe that each civilian who returned there would be, by their mere presence in this oblast, at real risk of serious threat against life or person.

The court further held that it was up to the applicants who were nationals from this oblast to provide all elements relating to their personal situation allowing them to believe that they would run a risk for their life or their person within the meaning of the provisions of the CESEDA. 

In this case, the applicant was granted subsidiary protection.