An Iranian national applied for international protection in Cyprus on 6 December 2018 arguing economic reasons and his religious beliefs. On 26 October 2021, he received his rejection decision and subsequently submitted an appeal to the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC).

IPAC upheld the considerations of the determining officer on the alleged discrimination in the labour market and the alleged conversion to Christianity, finding both claims unfounded. With regard to the former, it found that the applicant had not been excluded from specific position but had chosen not to pursue them. As to the latter, IPAC relied on the EUAA “COI Query Response - Situation of returnees from Western countries who converted from Islam to Christianity, including those who have a family with a Christian spouse and children; treatment by the state” (August 2024), noting that authorities may investigate alleged Christian converts and subject them to persecution, including detention and even death. Nonetheless, IPAC observed that, although the applicant had been baptized, he did not provide a satisfactory account of the internal process of his conversion and therefore considered the claim to lack credibility.

Next, the court analysed whether there would be real risk of serious harm to the applicant upon return. It concluded that the conditions set out in Article 15(a), namely death penalty or execution, and 15(b), namely the risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, of the recast Qualification Directive (QD), corresponding to Article 19 (2)(α) and (β) of the Cypriot Refugee Law, were not established in the applicant's case. Subsequently the court evaluated whether Article 15 (c) of the recast QD (Article 19 (γ) of the Cypriot Refugee Law) applied in the case.

The court recalled the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) including Elgafaji (C-465/07, 17 February 2009), which distinguishes between conflicts that pose a personal threat for the applicant and those in which the applicant's mere presence in the country or region exposes them to a real risk of serious harm; Diakite (C-285/12, 30 January 2014), which defines ‘armed conflict' as the clash between regular armed forces and/or organized armed groups; and CF and DN (C-901/19, 10 June 2021), which requires consideration of the intensity of the armed conflict, the level of organization of the armed groups, and the duration of the conflict in the risk assessment.

The court further cited the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling in Sufi and Elmi (Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011), which provides criteria to assess whether the conflict amounts to indiscriminate violence, including whether the parties employ tactics that increase the risk of civilian casualties or directly target civilians, whether such tactics are widespread, and, ultimately, the number of civilians killed, injured and displaced as a result of the conflict.

Additionally, drawing on the ECtHR rulings in Salah Sheekh (No. 1948/04, 11 January 2007) and JK and Others v. Sweden (No 59166/12, 23 August 2016), which recognise the courts' faculty to examine relevant Country of Origin Information (COI) in order exercise full jurisdiction and examine all relevant factual and legal issues, IPAC relied on the OHCHR Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran (A/HRC/61/60, 10 March 2026) and data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). The court noted that from the first days of operations, international organisations warned that the risk was not limited to individual military strikes and that the expansion of hostilities posed a great risk to civilians and key civilian infrastructure.

The court held that the evolution of the conflict had shown that the risk to civilians and to the day-to day functioning of the country was not limited to Tehran, noting that, according to ACLED, strikes had already been recorded in at least 26 of Iran's 31 provinces since the beginning of March. The court further noted the reports indicating repercussions on the country's health system and on critical energy zones outside the capital.

Moreover, the court considered the reports showing that the conflict had a direct impact on population movements, with UNHCR registering 100,000 new internally displaced persons, and that the consequences of the conflict were compounded by repression and restrictions, further complicating the protection of the population. Lastly, the court observed that no stable or agreed ceasefire framework had been reached. On this basis, IPAC held that hostilities continued, that the political and humanitarian consequences extend to almost the entire Iranian territory, and that any prospects for dialogue remain fragile, dependent on indirect contacts and on the willingness of the parties to turn the exchange of messages into a structured negotiation. Specifically, the court held that in the current context, public indications point more to a continuation of uncertainty and a risk of further escalation than on an immediate stabilisation of the situation.

The court emphasized that the particularly high number of civilian injuries, amounting to thousands of incidents, is not just a quantitative fact, but a crucial indicator of the intensity, duration and geographical extent of the violence being exercised. In addition, the court noted that, the large number of injured, combined with the corresponding number of dead and displaced, reflects a situation of generalized insecurity, in which the probability of exposure to serious harm is not theoretical but real and high for each person in the affected areas.

The court further highlighted that the assessment of the level of violence is not limited to quantitative data on the number of human casualties but also extends to qualitative characteristics of the conflict. The assessment of the risk of serious harm is not limited to a static depiction of the current security situation but also includes an assessment of its possible evolution in the event of the applicant's return. In this context, the court noted, it is crucial that there are indications that the violence exercised is dynamic and may continue or even escalate. The continuation of hostilities, the instability of the security situation and the unpredictability of the attacks show that the risk to the civilian population remains real and may intensify.

Based on those circumstances, the court concluded that it could not be ruled out that the applicant, in the event of return will be exposed to a real risk of serious harm since the intensity of the violence does not have a stabilising tendency, but, on the contrary, remains fluid and prone to further deterioration. Thus, the court concluded, based on the information available there is an armed conflict in the broad sense of the term, as interpreted by the CJEU case law, with a particularly high  level of indiscriminate violence, to the extent that mere presence of a civilian is sufficient to establish a real risk of serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 (c) QD and Article 19(2)(γ) of the Refugee Law. Citing the CJEU judgment in M'Bodj (C-542/13, 18 December 2014), the court ruled that both state and non-state actors of harm can be established, and that based on the available COI, the state of Iran is unable to provide the applicant with effective and non-temporary protection against the serious harm that he can reasonably be expected to suffer.

As for the possibility of internal relocation, the court cited the EASO “Practical Guide on the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative” (May 2021) and ruled, that considering the extent and intensity of the indiscriminate violence, as well as the generalised instability throughout the territory of Iran, it does not appear that there is a safe and reasonable alternative internal relocation in the area of the applicant.

Thus, based on the identification of the applicant as a mere civilian, the court ruled that he should be granted subsidiary protection based on Article 15(c) of the recast QD. The court recalled that the security situation in the applicant's country of origin must also be assessed at the time of issuing the decision, and any change in the conditions prevailing in Iran, either an improvement or a deterioration of the conditions, may lead to either the maintenance or withdrawal of the subsidiary protection granted.