UNHCR Statement on credibility assessment in asylum procedures issued in the context of the preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of Ramadi (C-7/25) and Kirkuk (C-8/25)

36. Establishing the facts in asylum cases is often challenging due to the complex and precarious circumstances faced by asylum seekers and refugees. Many arrive with only essential belongings and frequently lack personal documents, making it challenging to substantiate their claims with documentary or other evidence. Their accounts may be incomplete, inconsistent, or shaped by trauma. At the same time, an error in the asylum procedure can expose them to refoulement. Correctly assessing their claims, in line with international standards on evidence and credibility assessment, is therefore crucial.

37. UNHCR submits that the preliminary questions referred to the CJEU in the present case should be answered as follows:
1) In light of the overarching principles of the shared burden of proof and the benefit of the doubt, Article 4(5) QD must be applied with full consideration of the applicant’s individual circumstances and the specific context of the case. Member States may not consider the statements of an asylum-seeker as not credible solely due to the absence of full documentary evidence, even if the conditions set out in Article 4(5) QD are not fully met. National authorities are required to actively cooperate with applicants and assess all relevant evidence, including that which they can reasonably obtain themselves. A restrictive interpretation of this provision risks rendering Articles 4(1)-(4) meaningless and denying protection to those genuinely in need.
2) Article 46(3) APD must be interpreted as requiring a national court or tribunal of first instance to carry out a full and ex nunc examination of both the factual and legal elements of the case. This obligation includes the duty to assess, on its own motion where necessary, the applicant’s need for international protection. Such a comprehensive review is essential to ensure compliance with the principle of effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the EU Charter.