‘Must Article 15(c) be interpreted as meaning that that provision offers protection only in a situation of “internal armed conflict”, as interpreted by international humanitarian law, and, in particular, by reference to Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions ?Ģ. The Conseil d’Etat consequently sought clarification as to the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ as referred to in Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, referring the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:ġ.

The Applicant appealed to the Conseil d’Etat, arguing that, as he had sought protection under EU law, the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ should be examined according to its meaning under EU law, regardless of IHL. The Applicant’s claim for subsidiary protection based on the Qualification Directive was however refused, as the Commissariat général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides had determined that the situation in Guinea did not amount to an ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under Belgian asylum law, reflecting IHL. ‘Serious harm’ includes death, inhuman treatment, or a ‘serious and individual threat to a civilian's life … by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’ (Article 15).

The case concerns a Guinean national, Mr Aboubacar Diakité, who applied for asylum in Belgium in 2008, arguing that he had been the victim of acts of violence in Guinea, following his participation in protest movements against the ruling regime.Īccording to Article 2(e) of the Qualification Directive, a person is eligible for subsidiary protection if there exist ‘substantial grounds for believing that’, if returned to their country of origin, an applicant faces a ‘real risk of suffering serious harm’. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether the reference to ‘internal armed conflict’ in the context of EU asylum law, must be read independently from the definition used in international humanitarian law (“IHL”) and, if so, which criteria must be met for a situation to amount to an ‘internal armed conflict’. On 30 January 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a preliminary reference ruling in case C-285/12 Diakité concerning the interpretation of ‘internal armed conflict’ in the context of the subsidiary protection regime, established by Directive 2004/83/EC (“ Qualification Directive“).

This article is to be read in conjunction with the EDAL Case Summary

Armed conflicts definition