|
PARALLEL TEXTS
Nel diritto dell’Unione, la nozione di «conflitto armato interno» dev’essere intesa in modo autonomo rispetto alla definizione accolta dal diritto internazionale umanitario
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-12_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-12_it.htm
Data documento: 30-01-2014
1 |
In EU law, the interpretation to be given to the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ must be independent of the definition used in international humanitarian law
|
Nel diritto dell’Unione, la nozione di «conflitto armato interno» dev’essere intesa in modo autonomo rispetto alla definizione accolta dal diritto internazionale umanitario
|
2 |
An internal armed conflict must be found to exist where a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or where two or more armed groups confront each other, regardless of the intensity of the confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict
|
L’esistenza di un siffatto conflitto dev’essere constatata allorquando le forze governative di uno Stato si scontrano con uno o più gruppi armati o allorquando due o più gruppi armati si scontrano tra loro, indipendentemente dall’intensità degli scontri, dal livello di organizzazione delle forze armate o dalla durata del conflitto
|
3 |
An EU Directive protects not only persons who can qualify for recognition as refugees, but also persons who do not qualify for this status but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that, if returned to their country of origin or country of former habitual residence, they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm (subsidiary protection regime).
|
Una direttiva dell’Unione protegge non solo le persone cui è possibile riconoscere lo status di rifugiato, bensì anche quelle che non possono beneficiare di tale status, ma rispetto alle quali sussistono fondati motivi di ritenere che, se ritornassero nel paese di origine o nel quale avevano precedentemente la dimora abituale, correrebbero un rischio effettivo di subire un grave danno (regime di protezione sussidiaria).
|
4 |
Serious harm consists, inter alia, in a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.
|
Tale è considerata, in particolare, la minaccia grave e individuale alla vita o alla persona di un civile derivante dalla violenza indiscriminata in situazioni di conflitto armato interno o internazionale.
|
5 |
In 2008 and 2010, Mr Diakité – a Guinean national – applied for international protection in Belgium, arguing that he had been the victim of acts of violence in Guinea following his participation in protest movements against the ruling regime.
|
Nel 2008 e nel 2010 il sig. Diakité, un cittadino guineano, ha chiesto di poter beneficiare della protezione internazionale in Belgio, affermando di essere stato vittima di atti di violenza in Guinea a causa della sua partecipazione ai movimenti di protesta contro il potere insediato.
|
6 |
Mr Diakité was refused subsidiary protection on the ground that there was no ‘internal armed conflict’ in Guinea, as defined in international humanitarian law.
|
Il riconoscimento della protezione sussidiaria gli veniva negato con il motivo che non vi era in Guinea un «conflitto armato interno» quale inteso nell’ambito del diritto internazionale umanitario.
|
7 |
In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice in order to ascertain whether the interpretation to be given to the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ as referred to in Directive 2004/83 must be independent of the definition used in international humanitarian law and, if so, which criteria must be met in order for a situation to be covered by that concept.
|
In tale contesto, il Conseil d’État (Belgio) ha sollevato dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia la questione se la nozione di «conflitto armato interno», prevista dalla direttiva, debba essere interpretata autonomamente rispetto alla definizione accolta nel diritto internazionale umanitario e, in caso di risposta affermativa, secondo quali criteri debba essere valutata.
|
8 |
As regards the question whether the criteria for assessing whether an internal armed conflict exists are those established by international humanitarian law, the Court finds that the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ as used in Directive 2004/83 is unique to that directive and is not directly reflected in international humanitarian law, which acknowledges only ‘armed conflict not of an international character’.
|
Con riferimento alla questione se l’esistenza di un conflitto armato interno debba essere valutata in base ai criteri stabiliti dal diritto internazionale umanitario, la Corte constata che la nozione di «conflitto armato interno» è propria della direttiva e non trova diretta rispondenza nel diritto internazionale umanitario, che si limita a contemplare i «conflitti armati che non presentano carattere internazionale».
|
9 |
Moreover, since international humanitarian law makes no provision for a subsidiary protection regime, it does not identify situations in which such protection is necessary and the protection mechanisms that it establishes are quite distinct from those provided for under Directive 2004/83.
|
Peraltro, poiché il regime della protezione sussidiaria non è previsto nel diritto internazionale umanitario, quest’ultimo non identifica le situazioni in cui una tale protezione è necessaria e istituisce meccanismi di protezione chiaramente distinti da quello previsto dalla direttiva.
|
10 |
In addition, international humanitarian law is very closely linked to international criminal law, whereas no such relationship exists in the case of the protection mechanism provided for under Directive 2004/83.
|
Inoltre, il diritto internazionale umanitario è in stretta correlazione con il diritto penale internazionale, mentre una tale relazione è estranea al meccanismo di protezione previsto dalla direttiva.
|
11 |
The Court concludes from this that the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ must be given an autonomous interpretation.
|
La Corte ne trae la conclusione che la nozione di «conflitto armato interno» dev’essere interpretata in modo autonomo.
|
12 |
As regards the criteria to be applied in that connection, the Court states that the phrase ‘internal armed conflict’ refers to a situation in which a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or in which two or more armed groups confront each other.
|
Con riferimento ai criteri di valutazione della nozione, la Corte precisa che l’espressione «conflitto armato interno» si riferisce a una situazione in cui le forze governative di uno Stato si scontrano con uno o più gruppi armati o nella quale due o più gruppi armati si scontrano tra loro.
|
13 |
The Court recalls that, in the context of the system provided for under Directive 2004/83, the existence of an armed conflict can be a cause for granting subsidiary protection only where the degree of indiscriminate violence reaches such a high level that an applicant for subsidiary protection would face a real risk of suffering serious and individual threat to his life or person solely on account of his presence in the territory concerned.
|
La Corte ricorda che, nel regime istituito dalla direttiva, l’esistenza di un conflitto armato può portare alla concessione della protezione sussidiaria solamente se il grado di violenza indiscriminata raggiunge un livello tale che il richiedente, per la sua sola presenza sul territorio di cui trattasi, corre un rischio effettivo di subire una minaccia grave e individuale alla vita o alla persona.
|
14 |
The Court concludes from this that a finding that there is an armed conflict must not be made conditional upon the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.
|
La Corte ne trae la conclusione che la constatazione dell’esistenza di un conflitto armato non dev’essere necessariamente subordinata all’intensità degli scontri armati, al livello di organizzazione delle forze armate o alla durata del conflitto.
|
15 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
16 |
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
|
Il rinvio pregiudiziale consente ai giudici degli Stati membri, nell'ambito di una controversia della quale sono investiti, di interpellare la Corte in merito all’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione o alla validità di un atto dell’Unione.
|
17 |
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
|
La Corte non risolve la controversia nazionale.
|
18 |
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. |
Spetta al giudice nazionale risolvere la causa conformemente alla decisione della Corte. Tale decisione vincola egualmente gli altri giudici nazionali ai quali venga sottoposto un problema simile. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
In EU law, the interpretation to be given to the concept of ‘internal armed
conflict’ must be independent of the definition used in international
humanitarian law
An internal armed conflict must be found to exist where a State’s armed
forces confront one or more armed groups or where two or more armed groups
confront each other, regardless of the intensity of the confrontations, the
level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the
conflict
An EU Directive protects not only persons who can qualify for recognition as
refugees, but also persons who do not qualify for this status but in respect of
whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that, if returned to
their country of origin or country of former habitual residence, they would face
a real risk of suffering serious harm (subsidiary protection regime).
Serious harm consists, inter alia, in a serious and individual threat to a
civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of
international or internal armed conflict.
In 2008 and 2010, Mr Diakité – a Guinean national – applied for international
protection in Belgium, arguing that he had been the victim of acts of violence
in Guinea following his participation in protest movements against the ruling
regime.
Mr Diakité was refused subsidiary protection on the ground that there was no
‘internal armed conflict’ in Guinea, as defined in international humanitarian
law.
In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium)
requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice in order to ascertain
whether the interpretation to be given to the concept of ‘internal armed
conflict’ as referred to in Directive 2004/83 must be independent of the
definition used in international humanitarian law and, if so, which criteria
must be met in order for a situation to be covered by that concept.
As regards the question whether the criteria for assessing whether an
internal armed conflict exists are those established by international
humanitarian law, the Court finds that the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’
as used in Directive 2004/83 is unique to that directive and is not directly
reflected in international humanitarian law, which acknowledges only ‘armed
conflict not of an international character’.
Moreover, since international humanitarian law makes no provision for a
subsidiary protection regime, it does not identify situations in which such
protection is necessary and the protection mechanisms that it establishes are
quite distinct from those provided for under Directive 2004/83.
In addition, international humanitarian law is very closely linked to
international criminal law, whereas no such relationship exists in the case of
the protection mechanism provided for under Directive 2004/83.
The Court concludes from this that the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’
must be given an autonomous interpretation.
As regards the criteria to be applied in that connection, the Court states
that the phrase ‘internal armed conflict’ refers to a situation in which a
State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or in which two or more
armed groups confront each other.
The Court recalls that, in the context of the system provided for under
Directive 2004/83, the existence of an armed conflict can be a cause for
granting subsidiary protection only where the degree of indiscriminate violence
reaches such a high level that an applicant for subsidiary protection would face
a real risk of suffering serious and individual threat to his life or person
solely on account of his presence in the territory concerned.
The Court concludes from this that a finding that there is an armed conflict
must not be made conditional upon the intensity of the armed confrontations, the
level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the
conflict.
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the
Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer
questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law
or the validity of a European Union act.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance
with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts
or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
|