## Facts

- Iraqi nationals were recognized as refugees in Germany in 2001–2002 based on fear of persecution by Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime.
- After the regime’s overthrow and political change in Iraq, German authorities initiated review proceedings in 2004–2005.
- Between January and August 2005, Germany revoked the applicants’ refugee status, relying on EU-derived cessation rules.
- German courts reached differing views on whether changed conditions in Iraq justified cessation and on the required level of protection and risk assessment.
- The Federal Administrative Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning interpretation of the Qualification Directive’s cessation and protection provisions.

## Issues

1. When may refugee status cease due to changed circumstances in the country of nationality under the Qualification Directive?
2. Whether cessation requires the availability of effective protection from an “actor of protection,” including potential reliance on international organizations.
3. What probability standard applies to determine whether fear of persecution is no longer well-founded, including the effect of evidence of past persecution.

## Decision

- The CJEU held that refugee status ceases only where, due to a change of circumstances that is significant and non-temporary, the circumstances that justified the original fear of persecution no longer exist and the person has no other reason to fear persecution for a protected reason.
- For cessation, national authorities must verify—considering the individual’s situation—that relevant actors of protection have taken reasonable steps to prevent persecution, including operating an effective legal system for detection, prosecution, and punishment of persecutory acts, and that the person has access to that protection.
- Actors of protection may include state authorities or parties/organizations, including international organizations, controlling the state or a substantial part of its territory, but only if they provide effective, non-temporary protection.
- Authorities must apply the same standard of probability used at the time refugee status was granted when assessing whether fear of persecution is no longer well-founded.
- Evidence of past persecution remains a serious indication of a continuing risk; authorities must show good reasons, based on a significant and non-temporary change, that the persecution will not recur.
- The national court was left to apply these standards to the applicants’ circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Cessation of refugee status requires a significant, non-temporary change in country conditions that removes the basis for the original well-founded fear and leaves no other protected-ground persecution risk.
- Cessation demands verification of effective and accessible protection by qualifying actors, including a functioning legal system capable of preventing and responding to persecution.
- International organizations can qualify as actors of protection only if protection is effective and non-temporary.
- The “well-founded fear” probability standard governing recognition also governs cessation; withdrawal is improper if a well-founded fear remains.
- Past persecution strongly supports continued risk unless authorities demonstrate, with good reasons tied to durable change, that repetition is unlikely.
- Ending refugee status does not determine whether the person qualifies for subsidiary or other forms of protection.

## Conclusion

The CJEU required Member States to apply a strict cessation test: only durable, significant country changes coupled with effective, accessible protection and an individualized assessment—using the same “well-founded fear” standard and giving weight to past persecution—can justify withdrawing refugee status.


Salahadin Abdulla v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 & C-179/08 (C.J.E.U. 2010)