The applicant, an Ethiopian national from Mek’ele (Tigray region), fled to the Netherlands in December 2021 and applied for asylum. She claimed that, during the conflict in Tigray, Ethiopian authorities raided her family home and took valuables, looted her father’s shop and took her father away during a search, and later arrested her in Addis Ababa because of her Tigrayan ethnicity, detaining her in appalling conditions and threatening her with rape.

By decision of 17 August 2023, the State Secretary for Justice and Security rejected the asylum application. While accepting key elements of the applicant’s account as credible, the Minister for Asylum and Migration (the Minister) considered her fear unfounded in the current circumstances related to security and human-rights in Ethiopia. The Minister held that, upon return, the applicant does not face an individual risk because of her ethnicity and that Tigrayans were no longer regarded as a risk group, given the reported improvement in the situation. There was also a considerable lapse of time between the events and the applicant’s actual departure from Ethiopia. Based on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, General Official Country Report on Ethiopia (January 2024), the Minister further held that, following the November 2022 ceasefire agreement between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the federal Ethiopian authorities, Tigray was no longer affected by indiscriminate violence in the context of an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD).

The applicant appealed to the District Court of The Hague, seated in Amsterdam (the District Court). Relying on country of origin information (COI), including the Danish Immigration Service, Ethiopia – Security situation in Amhara, Oromia and Tigray regions and return (October 2024), the UK Home Office, Country policy and information note: Tigrayans and the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, Ethiopia (December 2024), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, General Official Country Report on Ethiopia (January 2024), the District Court held that the security situation in Tigray, and more specifically Mek’ele, was not unequivocal. On 22 April 2025, in light of the COI and Article 4(4) of the recast QD, the District Court annulled the Minister’s decision and ordered the Minister to adopt a new decision. The Minister appealed to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (the Council of State), which on 17 December 2025 allowed this appeal. The Council of State heard the case simultaneously with case 202500654/1/V2.

The Council of State ruled that the Minister had adequately reasoned that Mek’ele (under the Tigrayan Interim Regional Administration (TIRA)) was no longer affected by indiscriminate violence arising from an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the recast QD. With reference to the CJEU judgment in Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (C-285/12, 30 January 2014), it reminded that an internal armed conflict presupposes confrontations between state armed forces and one or more armed groups, or fighting between armed groups, and held that such confrontations were not occurring in Mek’ele. The Council of State held that the assessed COI (including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, General Official Country Report on Ethiopia, January 2024; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Update on the Human Rights Situation in Ethiopia, June 2024; UK Home Office, Country policy and information note: Tigrayans and the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, Ethiopia, December 2024) indicated a clear improvement in the security and human rights situation in the TIRA-administered area (including Mek’ele) after the November 2022 ceasefire, with a significant decline in armed confrontations and civilian deaths. With reference to its own case law (No 202407906/1/V2) on Article 15(c) of the recast QD, the Council of State also held that the applicant had not shown that the serious humanitarian situation in Mek’ele could be attributed to an actor of serious harm who is a party to an armed conflict, and that COI pointed primarily to weather conditions, insect plagues, and economic factors.

The Council of State accepted that the applicant’s past detention and threats in Addis Ababa during the conflict in Tigray were inhuman, recalling that, under Article 4(4) of the recast QD, past persecution or serious harm is a serious indication of a well-founded fear of future persecution or a real risk of serious harm unless there are good reasons to consider it will not recur, and that the burden to prove the non-recurrence lied with the Minister. The Council of State ruled that the Minister met this burden of proof, because the situation upon return to Mek’ele is different from when the applicant was detained in Addis Ababa and was threatened with rape because of her Tigrayan ethnicity during the conflict in Tigray. It held that the security and human rights situation in Mek’ele had improved following the ceasefire and where TIRA exercised control and that, in this case, the past persecution is not an indication that such persecution or harm will recur.

As regards the applicant’s fear of sexual violence against women in Ethiopia in general, the Council of State ruled that the Minister had adequately reasoned that the applicant had not shown that she has a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter). It held that the applicant had not substantiated that sexual violence was so prevalent in Mek’ele that women returning there have to systematically fear or face a real risk of sexual violence. The Council of State concurred with the Minister, who referenced the Physicians for Human Rights, “You Will Never Be Able to Give Birth” – Conflict-Related Sexual and Reproductive Violence in Ethiopia (31 July 2025) which indicated a significant decline in sexual violence after the ceasefire, and the submitted COI which showed that conflict-related sexual violence was primarily associated with Eritrean authorities in northern Tigray rather than in Mek’ele under TIRA control. Finally, the Council of State confirmed the Minister’s argumentation that the applicant had not shown that she was personally an object of negative attention of the Ethiopian authorities or the TIRA or otherwise personally had to fear sexual violence.

In conclusion, the Council of State allowed the Minister’s appeal, annulled the District Court’s judgment, and declared the applicant’s appeal unfounded, upholding the rejection of the asylum application.