The applicant, an Ethiopian national from Aksum (Tigray region), applied for asylum in the Netherlands. He claimed that, because of his Tigrayan ethnicity, he had been assaulted during his work as a taxi driver for transporting both Amhara and Tigrayan passengers. He further claimed that he was discriminated against when the war in Tigray began and that people were killed on a large scale when the army entered his village.

By decision of 7 October 2024, the Minister for Asylum and Migration (the Minister) rejected the asylum application. While accepting the applicant’s nationality, origin, and the discrimination experienced due to his Tigrayan ethnicity as credible, the Minister considered that the applicant did not face a real risk of serious harm upon return to Ethiopia. Based on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, General Official Country Report on Ethiopia (January 2024), the Minister 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 Rotterdam (the District Court), which dismissed the appeal as unfounded on 24 January 2025. The applicant further appealed to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (the Council of State), which on 17 December 2025 also dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The Council of State heard the case simultaneously with case BRS.25.000585.

The Council of State referred to its same-day judgment (BRS.25.000585), recalling that there was no internal armed conflict in the parts of Tigray administered by the Tigrayan Interim Regional Administration (TIRA), and therefore there was no indiscriminate violence arising from an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the recast QD. It held that the submitted country of origin information (COI) showed that the security situation in Aksum (also under the control of TIRA) had improved since the ceasefire agreement, with a significant decline in armed confrontations, human rights violations, and civilian deaths. The Council of State concluded that the applicant had not shown that there is an internal armed conflict in Aksum, and the security incidents and criminality in Aksum cannot be qualified as indiscriminate violence within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the recast QD. Additionally, 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 humanitarian situation in Aksum could be attributed to an actor of serious harm who was a party to an armed conflict, and that COI pointed primarily to weather conditions, insect plagues, and economic factors. The Council of State upheld the District Court’s decision, which confirmed that the Minister correctly concluded that the applicant had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm upon return to Ethiopia.

As regards the applicant’s ground of appeal concerning the assessment of his identity, the Council of State held that it did not lead to the annulment of the District Court’s judgment and gave no further reasoning, as it did not raise questions requiring an answer in the interest of legal unity, legal development or general legal protection.

In conclusion, the Council of State dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the District Court’s judgment, upholding the rejection of the asylum application.