A woman from Georgia requested international protection in Belgium on 26 January 2023 on grounds of her sexual orientation. She stated that she left Georgia because of her sexual orientation as bisexual and because of the domestic violence she suffered from her ex-boyfriend.

Georgia was designated by Belgium as a safe country of origin by Royal Decree of 14 January 2022. However, in the Royal Decree of 7 April 2023, published on 10 July 2023, Georgia was no longer included in the list of safe countries.

The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) decided to reject the application as manifestly unfounded on 11 January 2023. The applicant appealed against the decision of the CGRS on 26 January 2023.

New country of origin information was submitted for the hearing before CALL, which indicated that the LGBTIQ community in Georgia was one of the most vulnerable groups in Georgian society. The information also showed that homophobia was deeply rooted in Georgian society and that LGBTIQ people faced discrimination, intimidation, homophobic violence and harassment in many different areas of daily life, both in the family and in public. In addition, CALL noted that according to the Georgian Public Defender (Ombudsperson), homophobic statements by politicians, government officials and orthodox religious leaders also contributed to hatred and intolerance towards the LGBTIQ community. Moreover, the rise of far-right, homophobic and anti-gender movements in Georgian society in 2019-2020 further reinforced the oppression, abuse and discrimination of LGBTIQ people and the Public Defender called the presence of these movements alarming and stated that their actions posed a real threat to the lives and health of LGBTIQ people. CALL further noted country of origin information which concluded that the police were generally accessible, but they often reacted insensitively to LGBTIQ people, and that challenged remained although the Georgian authorities were making efforts to better deal with hate crime by organising training on this type of crime and the identification of hate motives.

Furthermore, CALL noted that in her supplementary note lodged at the hearing, the applicant added three internet articles showing that the Georgian Parliament adopted a new law ‘on family values and the protection of minors’ in September 2024, which prohibits, among other things, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, gender reassignment surgery and medical treatments, so-called LGBTIQ propaganda in educational institutions, changing gender on official documents, public gatherings or demonstrations advocating LGBTIQ rights, LGBTIQ expressions or images in the media, and also lifted the ban on employment discrimination against LGBTIQ persons. The news articles showed that the European Union regretted the adoption of this law and that an EU spokesperson stated that this law undermined the fundamental rights of the Georgian people and could lead to further stigmatisation and discrimination against LGBTIQ people in Georgia.

CALL concluded that, in view of all these new restrictions on the rights of LGBTIQ persons, it was reasonable to assume that their situation in Georgia is deteriorating. In the individual case of the applicant, the adoption of this law raised a new fact that may affect the assessment of the protection application, given its far-reaching consequences for the LGBTIQ community in Georgia.

CALL also attached particular importance to the fact that Georgia was no longer considered to be a safe country of origin, whereas this was still the case at the time of the contested decision.

Taking into account the already difficult Georgian context for LGBTIQ persons and the new country information provided by the applicant, from which it followed that the situation for LGBTIQ persons in Georgia was deteriorating, CALL considered that a further and thorough examination in the light of the recent situation in Georgia was necessary. CALL emphasised that the assessment of the need for international protection cannot be limited to a mere assessment of past elements and facts, but also requires a forward-looking assessment of the risk of persecution or serious harm in the light of up-to-date country of origin information, both in relation to the general situation in Georgia, in particular as regards access to and availability of effective state protection, and to the applicant’s individual circumstances.

Thus, the contested decision was annulled so that a full and ex nunc assessment could be carried out by the CGRS.