Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Country of Decision : France
Court Name : FR: National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)]
Date of decision : 19/11/2020
Type : Judgment
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : no. 19009476

M.N. (Afghanistan) v French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA)


FR: CNDA ruled on the process for assessing the level of violence generated by an armed conflict for the purposes of applying the subsidiary protection of Article L.712-1 c) of the CESEDA

The applicant, M.N., is an Afghan national, who requested asylum in France. The applicant stated that he fears persecution, in the event of his return to his country of origin, on the one hand, as a result of the family of his former partner, and of the Afghan authorities and society as a whole, on the other, on account of his extra-marital relationship with a young girl and, secondly, as a result of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, without in either case being able to benefit from effective protection from the authorities. By decision of 10 January 2019, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected his application. The applicant challenged this decision.

The CNDA, in the formation of Chambres Reunies, interpreted the application of the provisions of Article L. 712-1 c) of the CESEDA. The CNDA held that it is necessary to determine whether the conflict generates, in the part of the country where an applicant has established his interests, indiscriminate violence exposing him to a serious and individual threat against his life or person and, if applicable, the level of such violence. The CNDA noted that the need for such an assessment results from the CJEU case law in Elgafaji (C-465/07).
The CNDA held that the assessment of the level of violence is based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria to be assessed in the light of relevant sources at the date of the decision. The choice of these sources must comply with the requirements of European directives and take into account the recommendations of EASO.
With regard to the case under analysis, the CNDA held that the situation in Herat was not of such a nature that any person would be exposed by mere presence in the area. Thus, the CNDA rejected the appeal, concluding that the applicant did not provided any specific individual information that would prove that he would be specifically exposed to a real risk of suffering serious harm.

The CNDA made reference to the EASO report “Key socio-economic indicators. Focus on Kabul City, Mazar-e Sharif and Herat City’ of August 2020; The EASO Judicial Practical Guide on Country of Origin Information, 2018; The EASO Report Afghanistan: individuals targeted by armed actors in the conflict, December 2017; The EASO COI Report Afghanistan Anti-Government Elements (AEGs), 2020.

Afghanistan; Assessment of Application; Country of Origin Information; EASO COI Reports; EASO Country Guidance Materials; EASO Professional Development Series; Indiscriminate violence; Internal protection alternative/ flight alternative; Return/Removal/Deportation; Subsidiary Protection;

Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE; Revised Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection- recast)/or QD 2004/83/EC;


EASO Courts and Tribunals Network

France, National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)], M.N. (Afghanistan) v French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA), no. 19009476, 19 November 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.