English

Country Information in Asylum Procedures Quality as a Legal Requirement in the EUmeans that the information used and referred to in decision-making cannot be toogeneral and should always reflect the individual circumstances of each asylumseeker.Therefore in this context the criterion of individualisation does not refer to thepersonalised or general character of an applicant’s fear, it rather compels authoritiesto consider COI that reflects the individual situation referred to by the applicant. Inmany member states, this – now formalised – requirement may not bring anything new.At the same time, the implicit prohibition of using uniform “COI text modules” invarious different decisions on refugee status is still a noteworthy improvement of qualitystandards. For some member states, the obligation of individual assessment has brought achange mostly in respect of subsidiary protection, where a merely country-specific (nonindividualised)approach used to be more common. The Qualification and ProceduresDirectives do not distinguish between the two areas in this regard.EU member states transposed the above criterion into their national legislation. Thepractice of Hungary deserves special notice in this respect, as in addition to transposingthe general standard of individualised processing, it explicitly mentions this requirementas a condition for producing relevant COI. 43The Slovenian Act on International Protection 44 distinguishes between “general”and “specific” COI, and specifies thatIn establishing the grounds for international protection, the public official shall considerespecially [...]– General information on the country of origin, particularly on the social and politicalsituation and the adopted legislation;– Specific, detailed and in-depth information on the country of origin which refersexplicitly to the concrete individual case. The information can entail also themanner of implementation of laws and regulations of the country of origin; [...]Such explicit differentiation in legislation is rather unique in a European comparison.VI.2.2 JurisprudenceThe ECtHR has already evoked the necessity of considering specific, individualisedinformation in its judgment in Chahal, 45 when – on the basis of the material provided bythe defendant – it ascertained the improvement of conditions in the country and regionof origin, but at the same time it stressed the insufficiency of such general information.In Venkadajalasarma, once again, the ECtHR emphasised the need for anindividualised assessment of country information: 46The Court would agree with the applicant that the situation in Sri Lanka is not yet stable, as isillustrated by the recent developments on the political front [...] Whilst stability and certaintyare factors to be taken into account in the Court’s assessment of the situation in the receiving43Government Decree no. 301/2007 (XI.9.) on the implementation of Act LXXX of 2007 on asylum, Section71 (a), see full citation in Chapter VI.1.144Law on International Protection, Section 23 (1)45Para. 9146Para. 6734