# C_2019206EN.01003001.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 26 March 2019 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v O A

(Case C-255/19)

(2019/C 206/35)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: O A

Questions referred

| 1. | Is ‘protection of the country of nationality’ within the meaning of Article 11(l)(e) and Article 2(e) of the Qualification Directive (1) to be understood as state protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is ‘protection of the country of nationality’ within the meaning of Article 11(l)(e) and Article 2(e) of the Qualification Directive (1) to be understood as state protection?

| 2. | In deciding the issue of whether there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the QD and the issue of whether there is protection available against such persecution, pursuant to Article 7 QD, is the ‘protection test’ or ‘protection inquiry’ to be applied to both issues and, if so, is it governed by the same criteria in each case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In deciding the issue of whether there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the QD and the issue of whether there is protection available against such persecution, pursuant to Article 7 QD, is the ‘protection test’ or ‘protection inquiry’ to be applied to both issues and, if so, is it governed by the same criteria in each case?

| 3. | Leaving to one side the applicability of protection by non-State actors under Article 7(l)(b), and assuming the answer to question (1) above is yes, is the effectiveness or availability of protection to be assessed solely by reference to the protective acts/functions of state actors or can regard be had to the protective acts/functions performed by private (civil society) actors such as families and/or clans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Leaving to one side the applicability of protection by non-State actors under Article 7(l)(b), and assuming the answer to question (1) above is yes, is the effectiveness or availability of protection to be assessed solely by reference to the protective acts/functions of state actors or can regard be had to the protective acts/functions performed by private (civil society) actors such as families and/or clans?

| 4. | Are (as is assumed in questions (2) and (3)) the criteria governing the ‘protection inquiry’ that has to be conducted when considering cessation in the context of Article 11(l)(e), the same as those to be applied in the Article 7 context? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are (as is assumed in questions (2) and (3)) the criteria governing the ‘protection inquiry’ that has to be conducted when considering cessation in the context of Article 11(l)(e), the same as those to be applied in the Article 7 context?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004, L 304, p. 12).

---