The case concerned the appeal against the negative decision on a request for temporary protection submitted by an national of Senegal.

The Administrative Tribunal rejected the appeal after having assessed whether the applicant met the cumulative requirements of permanent or temporary residence in Ukraine and the inability to safely and durably return to the country of origin. For the first condition, the tribunal found that he submitted documents confirming that he resided in Ukraine for 9 years and he proved a legal residence there. The tribunal assessed that the applicant proved to have met the first condition of valid resident in Ukraine before 24 February 2022.

On the second requirement on return on safe and durable conditions, the tribunal reiterated the European Commission specified in its guidelines that the incapacity of returning in safe conditions must be based on a general situation in the country/region of origin of the applicant and that the later must be able to prove, by presenting specific individual elements that he is not able to return, specifically to demonstrate that for example there is a serious risk for his security, or situations of armed conflict or violences or documented risks of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Commission also specified that a durable return presupposes that the person can enjoy in his country or region the rights offering the perspective of meeting the fundamental basic needs and the possibility to reintegrate in the society, et that there is still a string link with the country of origin, by considering that duration of the residence in Ukraine or the existence of family in the country of origin. Therefore, the tribunal underlined that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate that he cannot return to Senegal under safe and durable conditions as mentioned above.

The applicant invoked a situation of endemic violence in Senegal and a fear of being victim of violences since his friends were victims in various incidents, he invoked also some family conflicts, and he fears being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. He also feared that a return to his country of origin will have a negative impact on the continuity of his professional life in Ukraine. The tribunal stated that the applicant did not demonstrate an absence of a perspective to meet his basic fundamental needs in Senegal, the country where he lived the vast majority of his life and he did not demonstrate that he cannot reintegrate i9nto the Senegalese society or that he no longer has a significant link with his country of origin, as the tribunal deemed that a family conflict and an hypothetical fear of repression from family members was not sufficient to demonstrate that the return was not safe and durable. The tribunal found no proof of risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter.