Case C-621/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, foreign national, repression, right of asylum, sexual discrimination, sexual violence








C_2022024EN.01001702.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet
(Case C-621/21)
(2022/C 24/23)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WS

Defendant: Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

Questions referred







1.


For the purpose of classifying gender-based violence against women as a ground for granting international protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and under Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, do the definitions of terms and concepts in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979 and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence apply in accordance with recital 17 of Directive 2011/95/EU, or does gender-based violence against women, as a ground for granting international protection under Directive 2011/95, have an autonomous meaning which differs from that in the abovementioned instruments of international law?










2.


In the case where gender-based violence against women is alleged, must membership of a particular social group as a reason for persecution pursuant to Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95 be established by taking account solely of the biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender of the victim of persecution (violence against a woman merely because she is a woman), can the specific forms/acts/actions of persecution referred to in the non-exhaustive list in recital 30 be a relevant factor in determining the ‘visibility of the group in society’ — that is to say, can they be its distinguishing feature — depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, or can those acts relate only to the acts of persecution under Article 9(2)(a) or (f) of Directive 2011/95?










3.


In the case where the person applying for protection alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence, does that person’s biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender constitute a sufficient ground for determining membership of a particular social group under Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95, or must an additional distinguishing characteristic be established, on a literal interpretation, to the letter, of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, which provides for the conditions as cumulative in nature and the gender-related aspects as alternative in nature?










4.


In the case where the applicant alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence by a non-State actor of persecution within the meaning of Article 6(c) of Directive 2011/95, is Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/95 to be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the purpose of establishing a causal link that there is a link between the reasons for persecution set out in Article 10 and the acts of persecution referred to in paragraph 1 of that article, or is it mandatory to establish absence of protection from the alleged persecution; does the link exist in cases where the non-State actors of persecution do not perceive the individual acts of persecution/violence as such as being gender-based?










5.


Can the real threat of an honour killing in the event that the person concerned is returned to the country of origin justify — if the other conditions for this are met — the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 15(a) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the ECHR (no one is to be deprived of his or her life intentionally), or is that threat to be classified as harm under Article 15(b) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in an overall assessment of the risk of further acts of gender-based violence; is it sufficient for the granting of such protection that the applicant has stated that he or she is subjectively unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of origin?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.