The applicant is South Sudanese, belongs to the Shilluk tribe and comes from the city of Malakalal. He applied for asylum on 25 April 2022. The application was rejected by the Minister for Asylum and Migration on 13 February 2024. The applicant appealed this decision before the District Court of the Hague, seated in Groningen.

The court considered the alleged fears of the applicant, namely that he fears threats from the Nuer tribe, recruitment from his own tribe and the general security situation in his home country, in light of CJEU judgment X, Y and their six children v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C‑125/22). It noted that according to the CJEU, the assessment of the risk of serious harm consists of two parts; firstly, the examination of all relevant elements related to the applicant’s individual situation and the general situation in the applicant’s country of origin and secondly, an assessment of which sub-article under Article 15 of the recast Qualification Directive is applicable.

The court upheld the negative credibility finding by the minister in relation to the alleged threat by the Nuer tribe, noting significant contradictions in the applicant’s account. Furthermore, it found that the minister was right to conclude that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the risk of recruitment by his tribe.

Following this, the court assessed the general security situation in South Sudan. With reference to the ECtHR judgment N.A. v United Kingdom (25904/07), the court noted the following factors that must be taken into account when assessing whether the most exceptional situation of indiscriminate violence exists: the intensity of the armed conflict; the organisational level of the armed forces concerned; the duration of the conflict; the geographical extent of the situation of indiscriminate violence; the actual destination of the applicant in the event of return to the country or territory concerned; any deliberate violence used by the warring parties against civilians; the presence of a safety structure; and the number of displaced persons. 

The court noted that the CJEU in C‑125/22 elaborated on the application of Article 15(c) ruling that even with a lesser degree of indiscriminate violence, the presence of individual elements may still result in a real risk of serious harm due to indiscriminate violence, referred to as the ‘less-exceptional situation’.

Taking into account country of origin information, the court determined that South Sudan remained one of the most fragile states in the world, lacking a security structure and with 76 % of its population reliant on humanitarian aid. It noted that food insecurity and flooding had further devastated the country's infrastructure and limited aid efforts. Furthermore, it highlighted that human rights violations and tribal conflicts persisted, leading to a record number of displaced persons, estimated at over two million since the signing of the R-ARCSS. Reports from UNMISS indicated that violence shifted across regions, with Upper Nile State, the applicant’s place of origin, experiencing significant conflict in 2022 before shifting to Warrap State in 2023. However, recent reports confirmed that interethnic violence and militia fighting continued in Upper Nile State, including attacks on displaced persons and refugee camps, particularly around Malakal. Kidnappings by armed groups were also most prevalent in this area. Given these conditions, the court noted that UNHCR had repeatedly advised against forcible returns to South Sudan.

The court concluded that the minister had not adequately justified its position that the situation in South Sudan did not constitute a ‘most exceptional situation’ as per Article 15(c). Although the minister acknowledged the fragile state of the country and the high number of displaced persons, the minister failed to convincingly argue that long-term displacement diminished the current security concerns. In this regard, the court pointed out that country reports indicated that 337,000 people had been displaced due to violence in 2022 alone, mainly in Jonglei, Upper Nile, and Unity States. While the minister noted some positive developments, such as the peace agreement and occasional military interventions, many provisions of the R-ARCSS remained unfulfilled. The court stated that a report by UNHCR in May 2024 further undermined the minister’s stance, stating that the situation on the ground did not support safe and dignified returns.

The court also found the minister’s reliance on a reduced number of civilian fatalities since the 2013-2018 civil war unconvincing, as the minister failed to explain why this factor outweighed other relevant circumstances. Furthermore, the minister did not sufficiently justify the claim that humanitarian aid was not being deliberately obstructed as a weapon of war. Lastly, the court determined that the minister had not adequately considered the applicant's actual return destination. As a result, the primary ground of appeal was upheld.

In conclusion, the court found that the minister wrongly concluded the applicant lacked a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm. It annulled the decision and ordered a reassessment of both the general security situation in South Sudan and if necessary, the applicant’s individual risk.