Andrei Plop – Ministry of Administration and Interior

Ministry of Administration and Interior

Romanian Immigration Office

Asylum and Integration Directorate

Regional Center for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers in Bucharest

Personal Data Operator number 6052

File number 19208/2011                                                                    Bucharest, 09.01.2012
Decision
Number 1198900 / h / DO

there might be translation mistakes

Regarding the settlement in the ordinary procedure of the asylum application number 119800 / c / DD of 30.11.2001, addressed to the Romanian Immigration Office  – The Directorate for Asylum and Integration by Mr Plop Andrei, citizen of the Republic of Moldova, born on 28.09.1988, in the Republic of Moldova (proven identity), with the last residence declared in Bucharest, Vasile Stolnicul street, number 15, block 13, sector 2.On December 28, 2011  the interview was conducted at the headquarters of the Romanian Immigration Office – Asylum and Integration Directorate – Regional Accommodation and Procedures Center for Asylum Seekers Bucharest, by Dana Oprea – an official appointed pursuant to Article 48 paragraph 2 of Act No. 122/2006 with subsequent amendments and completions – who interviewed the applicant after having been presented and explained the rights and obligations provided by the Romanian law. The applicant did not want to be assisted by a lawyer.  The applicant did not want to be assisted by an interpreter, the interview being conducted in the Romanian language. The interview was recorded in writing, being a final recitated to the applicant and confirmed by his signature.  There were no objections to the way the interview was conducted. Further details of the state of affairs refer to the content of the file.The Romanian Immigration Office – the Asylum and Integration Directorate, by Dana Oprea – official designated pursuant to Article 48 (2) of Law No. 122/2006, with subsequent modifications and additions – analyzing the reasons invoked by the applicant in the documents in the file of the person concerned,  report on its country of origin status.
DecideRejects as unfounded the application for refugee status.No subsidiary protection is granted.It obliges the person concerned to comply with the provisions of Article 19 (j) of the Law No. 122/2006 on asylum in Romania, with subsequent amendments and completions.Motivation of the judgment
Following the interview,  the examination of the asylum application and the documents in the file shall be as follows:In factA. Establishing IdentityThe applicant stated that he is called the Andrei Plop,  born on 28.09.1988 in the city of Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, citizen of the Republic of Moldova, identity with passport serial A number 2644954.B. Result of the checksFollowing the checks, it was found that Mr. Plop Andrei  (Proven identity) entered lawfully in Romania for the first time on 23.11.20011  addressed an asylum application to the Regional Accommodation and Procedures Center for Asylum Seekers in Bucharest, citing that he is a member of the European Action Movement Party and participated in the anti-communism protest from 07.04.2009.On 05.12.2011 the questionnaire was filled in at the headquarters of the Regional Accommodation and Procedures Center for Asylum Solicitors Bucharest, the location of Tudor Gociu by Răzvan Brebeanu. The questionnaire was completed in writing, being finally recited, and the applicant confirmed by his signature.C. DocumentsThe applicant submitted the following documents to the personal file in support of his statements: airline tickets, a newspaper article, a subpoena, response to petition issued by the Embassy of Romania in the Republic of Moldova C 5332 / 08.07.2009, a nomination for candidate for the position of deputy in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, membership card of the Political Social Movement European Action,  the ordinance and the minutes of recognition as accused,  citation number 25-11-3M09-8481,  a DVD where three documentaries are saved, identity card series A number 2644954 issued by the Republic of Moldova on 03.10.2006, valid until 03.10.2016.D. Summary of the applicant’s declarationsOn 30 November 2011, Mr. Andrei Plop applied for asylum, citing that he is a member of the European Action Movement Party and participated in the anti-communist protest from 07.04.2009.On 28.12.2011 the interview was conducted at the headquarters of the Romanian Immigration Office  – Asylum and Integration Directorate – Regional Accommodation and Procedures Center for Asylum Seekers Bucharest, by Dana Oprea – an official appointed pursuant to Article 48 paragraph 2 of Act No. 122/2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented – who interviewed the applicant after having been presented and explained the rights and obligations provided by the Romanian law. The applicant did not want to be assisted by a lawyer. The applicant did not want to be assisted by an interpreter, the interview beingconducted in Romanian. The interview was recorded in writing,  being finally recitalized to the applicant and confirmed by his signature. There were no objections to the way the interview was conducted.On the occasion of the interview, the applicant stated that he is called Andrew’s Plop, born on 28.09.1988 in the city of Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, citizen of the Republic of Moldova.He has a passport whose release personally presented himself, without problems from the authorities and with whom he spoke in Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, Poland, Russia. He does not suffer from any chronic disease. He did not perform the military service, although although it is mandatory for 18-year-old boys, he was a student, thus being exempt.As far as the reasons for leaving the country of origin, said he first came to Romania in January or February 2009 at a conference of the Association of Cultural History organized by the Social Action Policy Movement.  He stayed for 5 days. On 28.09.2010 he left Moldova to Belarus,  he stayed for 4 days and then went to Poland. There he asked for asylum and stayed in a camp for a month and a half in the city of Biala Podlaska. In total he spent 9 months in Poland. He was the only one in the Republic of Moldova. He made a request to the director of the social  department explaining that he was blackmailed by Chechens and wanted the transfer to another city. He was given a reply stating that the department was not dealing with the relationship between asylum seekers.  Because it was delayed and was not answered in a shorter time, was not helped by the Polish authorities, decided to leave for Germany.  Then he went to Germany and asked for asylum there, stayed for about a month.  He was jailed, then returned to Poland. He was forced to stay in a closed center for two months, and he had to stay three more. He gave up the asylum application in Poland, stayed for another month, then returned through the International Organization for Migration,  in Belarus on 10.11.2011, because he could not return to the Republic of Moldova. The second time he came to Romania on 29.11.2011 in Belarus.  He did not stay in Belarus because there are communists there, and in his home country he is considered organizer of protests against the Communists.
Asked what problems he had in the Republic of Moldova, he replied that from 2005 to 2006 he was a sympathizer of the Christian Democratic People’s Party.From 2006 to 2008 he was vice-president of the New Generation Youth Organization of the Christian Democratic People’s Party. In 2007 he ran for the position of local councilor in Pascani. On 23.11.2008 he became a member of the European Action Movement. He was elected president of the youth organization also in 2008. On April 5, 2009, he was nominated for the position of deputy in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova by the Social Action-Political Action Movement. On 07.04.2009 there were protests that he attended, but he was not an organizer. There were about 30,000 students in the National Assembly Square, in front of the presidency. Fire on Communist banners, stoned to the cops. He found a police station. There were some filming, and he was caught with the station in his hand, having protesters around him, considering himself to be the organizer. He was blamed by both the ruling communist party and the opposition. On 03.03.2009  he had a press conference and officially declared that a group of members of the Christian Democratic People’s Party will move to the European Action Movement. Anatol Matasaru is a very active character in protests against the police and he also participated in this protest, and the station he found gave it to him. After the protest in front of the presidency, some protesters took the flag of the Republic of Moldova and went to the Interior Ministry, it was a group of 10 people, including Anatol Matasaru. Then he went to the Government, and from there he went home, but there were other protests. In the evening he went to relatives in the northern part of the country. He left because he knew there would be arrests. At eight o’clock he left, and police arrived at 22:00. They presented themselves as colleagues, they were civilians. The problem was he never went home with colleagues from college and they had no way to know where I live. His parents told them he was not home,  After which the two policemen presented the police cards, they searched the house, told their parents that they wanted to help and call them when I return home. They called home, but the parents told them I was in Ukraine. To relatives, I spent about three months, from 07.04.2009 to June 2009, but no more than two weeks for each cousin.  Asked if he had any problems with the authorities during these three months, he said he was in a bus station and saw a policeman heading for him. Then he took out a Bible and asked him if he did not want to know the truth about Jesus Christ, and he annoyed him and told him to leave.When he returned to the University in September 2009, the Dean told him that he had been searched for by the SIS police (Information and Security Service). They were interested in what group I am. There were many arrested that night and were beaten, even killed by three police officers in police stations. Students who participated in those protests made an organization, April 7, and they said about 700 people were arrested. He returned home in June 2009. Because of the deaths of those three people, the opposition made complaints and researches were made by commissions from the European Union, and the students who were imprisoned were released. In July 2009 he was summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office he went with his lawyer. He was informed that he was charged with organizing protests, mass disorder. They were doing well with him because he was assisted by a lawyer, but also because many police officers were being investigated. They were brought to the evidence, a film, some statements. At the end of July were the anticipated elections. An alliance of European integration has formed, the Communists have lost their choices, have not obtained a majority. He continued his studies, he gave the arrears. On 04.05.2010 he was again summoned by the General Prosecutor’s Office as a witness at the events of 07.04.2009. Then he was told that it would be good to make false statements against Anatol Matasaru and Anataol Peterencu – this being the presidency of the European Action Movement. He refused, told them everything he knew about the events. On 05.09.2010 a referendum was held – organized by the Integration Alliance for the European Union – in which the presidencies were chosen directly by the people. The Communists wanted to boycott the referendum, advised the world not to vote. The required number of participants has not been formed, so the retirement has not been achieved. Then he was again summoned by Sergiu Rosu – the prosecutor of the Criminal Investigation Section on Extraordinary Causes of the General Prosecutor’s Office – around 15.09.2010 and he was told again that if he did not give those statements as they wanted, it was envisaged that drug trafficking files or other criminal acts would be made. He did not have a lawyer because he thought he was quoted as a witness. He told them he would not give  false testimony, and they threatened him again to make criminal files. Then he left home. On 28.09.1988 he left the country in Belarus and did not return to Moldova.He does not know if there were other people called to make false statements against Anatol Matasaru and Anatol Petrencu. As for the reasons why he asked for Romania’s protection, he said he feared persecution in the Republic of Moldova, he risked being jailed. When he went to Belarus, he bought a Moscow-Casablanca ticket with transit through London. The idea was to seek asylum in the UK. But the ticket was not released, because another person before him said the same story he wanted to say, that he is going to Casablanca to get married. He then went to the Embassy of Romania in Minsk and said he wanted to come to Romania from Saint Andrew (30.11.2011). He obtained a three-day tourist visa. Also, when he was returned from Poland, he was banned from entering the Shengen area for a period of 5 years and therefore chose Romania, he knew the Romanian language and was illegal in Belarus.He is an atheist, is not part of an ethnic trib / clan / grp. He is a member of the European Action Movement since 2008, participated in the protest on 07.04.2009. The Christian Democratic People’s Party collaborated with the Communists. The European Action Movement was a newly formed party and attracted many young people, and therefore chose to move from PPCD to the Euopean Action Movement. The latter has as a embelma a key. The party’s emblem was 12 stars and wrote MAE the presidency was Anatol Pebtrencu, then Vaceslav Untila. In 2011 he was included in the Liberal Party, headed by Mihai Ghimpu. The European Action Movement is struggling to integrate into the European Union and join NATO, but also to eliminate Communists from power. He was president of the Youth Organization and vice-president of the main structure, the Criuleni branch and subordinated to Secretary General Mariana Taranu. Organizes meetings with members, propaganda, has subordinate territorial organizations.He was never detained, arrested or convicted, never received an arrest warrant. He can not return to the Republic of Moldova because he will be arrested, he would have been caught by the country, so he can not move to another area to get rid of the problems.If he obtains a form of protection in Romania, Mr. Plop Andrei wants to follow the courses of the Faculty of Law. Asked whether he has anything to say yet, he explained that he had written a petition to Traian Basescu, which he submitted to the Embassy of Romania from the Republic of Moldova, requesting asylum on 24.04.09. He received an answer on 30.07.2009, in which he was told that he must be in Romania to seek asylum. In 2010, he was recommended to obtain a visa to enter Romania, but because it took too long, he chose to leave for Belarus. No other reasons were raised in support of asylum applications. Regarding other details of the state of affairs, reference is made to the content of the file.In lawIn view of the legal situation of the facts presented by the applicant, the provisions of the Romanian Constitution and the provisions of Law 122/2006 on asylum in Romania, with subsequent amendments and completions, were taken into account.Analyzing these provisions results from the provisions of Law No. 122/2006 on asylum in Romania, with subsequent amendments and completions to the status and regime of refugees signed by Romania, as well as in accordance with the general internal and international provisions on fundamental human rights.
1. The analysis of the asylum application in terms of its inclusion in the elements of the refugee status definition.
1.A. Analysis of the refugee definition element, “outside of the country of origin”The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of Moldova and on 30.11.2011 personally applied for asylum in Romania.
1.B. Analysis of the elements “acts of persecution / agents of persecution / persecution”“Persecution” means an action that is sufficiently serious in itself or by repeating the facts in order to expose the applicant to dangers likely to harm his or her life, bodily integrity or freedom or to obviously prevent him from living in his country of origin, and is based on one or more of the following reasons: race, nationality, religion, membership of a social group or public opinion, whether the reasons are real or attributed to the person concerned by the persecuting agent.1.B.i. Analysis of acts of persecutionThe reason for submitting a request by the applicant is that he would have been looking for the authorities, being considered one of the organizers of the protests of 07.04.2009.1.B.ii. Analysis of the Persecution AgentsTaking into account Article 11 of the Government Decision No. 1251/2006 for the approval of the methodological norms for the application of the Law no. 122/2006 on asylum in Romania, the subsequent acquisitions and additions, it was noted that in the present case the applicant invoked state persecution agents, respectively the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.1.B.iii. Analysis of the link between the invoked acts and one or more of the criteria set out in the refugee definition.Asked during the interview, the applicant tried to present evidence that the persecution was caused by one of the limiting reasons listed in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Law No. 122/2006, on asylum in Romania, with the subsequent amendments and completions, that is, politics.
He presented a lot of details about the political situation in the Republic of Moldova, the political parties and the demonstrations of 07.04.2009. He also exposed his situation in Poland as an asylum seeker, but these issues are of no importance in his case analysis, from the point of view of the asylum procedure in Romania.Asked to explain what problems he had in the Republic of Moldova, the alleged acts of persecution would be due to the fact that he would be considered one of the organizers of the protests from 07.04.2009. But it has to be taken into account that these protests took place against the Communists, and now they are in opposition, the Alliance for European Integration, which is made up of: the Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party – in which the European Action Movement was also included. Thus, the party he was part of, being even a very important member, is currently in power and seems unbelievable that he could persecute him because he participated in those demonstrations.Thus, from the analysis of the statements made during the interview, it was not possible to establish, in the applicant’s case, the link between the acts allegedly acts of persecution and one of the reasons for the persecution foreseen in the refugee definition.1.C State protection / alternative to internal retreatRegarding the level of protection of the authorities and the alternative of the internal retreat, the following information from the country of origin is mentioned;In the context of impotmolating the truth about the April 2009 events, political analysts argue that it is important that the positions expressed by the heads of the Force Institutions be analyzed in the light of the political algorithm through which they came into office. As soon as the Alliance for European Integration was established, the General Prosecutor’s Office came to the Democratic Party, the Interior Minister of the Liberal Democratic Party, and the head of the Information and Security Service was returned to the Liberal Party. “(Deutsche Welle – April 7, 2009 – a sabotaged and buried truth, April 15, 2011) [accessed June 1, 2011]The fact that he had no problems with the authorities because he was hidden from his relatives seems to be untrue, in the context of the fact that he was a significant figure of political life in the republic of Moldova. Moreover, it is not plausible to declare that a Prosecutor within the General Prosecutor’s Office has been threatened, because he is also appointed by the country’s leadership, the leadership of the former Movement for European Action, the current Liberal Party, whose party important was the applicant.These aspects lead us to appreciate that it is not necessary to detail the protection provided by Moldovan authorities to the one in question.
1.d. Analysis of the risk of future persecution (in case of return)We appreciate that if the applicant returns to his home country, it is unlikely that there will be a risk of future persecution against him, as long as he did not face problems from the Moldovan authorities until his departure from the Republic of Moldova.2. Analysis of the elements of well-founded fear of being persecuted or exposed to a serious risk / establishing the credibility of the solicited statementsAs mentioned in the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining the Refugee State – UNHCR, Geneva, 1992 – the definition of the refugee and thus the notion of “well-founded fear of being persecuted” implies the presence of a subjective element in the person requesting such status. For this reason, the determination of the refugee state will mainly consist , in assessing the solicited statements, and in judging the situation in his / her home country. Analyzing the “well-founded” phrase, it can be concluded that refugee status is not determined simply by the mere existence of a person’s mood, but also by the objective situation on which he is based.2.A regarding the subjective elementIn analyzing the subjective element of “fear of persecution” it was taken into account that, according to the applicant’s statements, his country of origin and the face of which the fear of persecution invoked is Moldova. Analyzing the fear of persecution invoked by the solicited person, from a subjective point of view, we appreciate that this is not founded, because it can not be reasonably established that his continued stay in his country of origin became intolerable for himself because of reasons invoked in the definition, or become intolerable for the same reasons, if they return there.The applicant has alleged persecution on the part of the authorities in the Republic of Moldova, because he is considered the organizer of the protests that led to the removal of the Communists from the power and bringing the Alliance for European Integration, the alliance of the Liberal Party, the former movement of the European Action , whose youth organizations would have been led by Mr. Andrei Plop. Thus, the claims invoked by the applicant can not be regarded as plausible and credible.Under these circumstances, we appreciate that from the subjective point of view the fear of persecution of the applicant is unintelligible, without a real foundation.2.B. About the lens elementIt is necessary to evaluate the statements made by the interviewee, which can not be evaluated in abstract, but must be analyzed in the context of concrete situations, with a knowledge of the conditions in the country of origin, the latter being an element important in assessing the credibility of the person concerned.Considering the information in the country of origin, the following occurred: Starting from the regional political and economic context, it can be said that 2010 was a relatively good one for the Republic of Moldova. The government, even under interim conditions, has managed to halt the decline and revive the country’s economy. The most important success in 2010 is the re-dimensioning of relations with theEuropean Union. In January 2010, the process of negotiations on the new Association Agreement started and in March a strategic document “Rethink Moldova” was adopted, which sets the development priorities of the Republic of Moldova for 2011-2013, priorities to have solid financial support from the EU. At the meetings of the RE-EU Cooperation Council, the dialogue on the creation of a free trade area between Moldova and the EU and the liberalization of the visa regime were officially launched. Finally, special relations with the EU have opened new perspectives for Transnistrian settlement.The governance of the Alliance for European Integration (AEI) has begun a series of reforms in line with the 2009-2013 Governance Program: “European Integration: Freedom, Democracy, Welfare”. But the provisional government and the politicization of the public administration marked the concern of the AEI components for their own electoral interests, to the detriment of a consolidated government. As a result, a number of reforms announced in the governance program were suspended until the political stability after the early parliamentary elections was established. The most conclusive example in this respect is the field of justice, where a number of reforms have begun, with laws on: law reform, liberalization of the enforcement system, etc. However, the shortcomings set out in the Parliament’s Declaration on the State of Justice in the Republic of Moldova [1] have not been removed at all.2011 will probably be a very difficult year for Moldova. If in 2010 the AEI had passed the resistance test against the PCRM’s retaliatory intention, then in 2011 it will have to pass the test of the loyalty of its own components to the commitments set forth in the AEI Reconstruction and Operation Agreement. The main challenges for the AEI will be related to addressing the issue of the election of the head of state. There is no doubt that safe procedures, in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions, can be identified regarding the finalization of the election of the head of state, leaving only the efforts of the AIE components to be coordinated.It is noteworthy that in the situation of the vicious circle that has been created with regard to the election of the head of state there are no expressly set deadlines, which leave wide scope for maneuver to set favorable terms in order to successfully conclude the exercise.The second major challenge for AEI is the local elections in early summer. There is a risk that, in particular, the fight for Chisinau City ,could dramatically undermine the AEI’s cohesion.That is why, in general, the introduction of political stability could only be discussed after the constitution of the majority in the district councils in July 2011. (Association for Participatory Democracy << ADEPT, Political Year 2010 [accessed 01 June 2011]With regard to the youth organization of the European Action Movement, no specific information was found about it, nor was it an official website for research conducted in sources available on the Internet.”Anatol Petrencu (born May 22, 1954 in Causeni, Republic of Moldova) Politician and scientist of the Republic of Moldova. In 1990-1992 he was Dean of the Faculty of History of the State University of Moldova, and between 1998 and 2006 he was president of the Association of Historians from the Republic of Moldova. Between 2006 and 2010 he was chairperson of the European Action Movement. Since October2010 he is the director of the Institute of Social History “ProMemoria” Vice-President of the Liberal Party. ” (Wikipedia) [accessed January 4, 2012]”On the morning of January 29, 2009, Moldovan Prosecutors’ Day, Anatol Matasaru was detained in front of the Prosecutor General’s office in Chisinau, as he claimed a protest dressed in a pork suit and used an audio system to produce similar noises a pig. He protested because he would have been inappropriately treated by prosecutors as a result of a plunger. In Plus, he challenges two criminal investigations against him, which he considers based on evidence produced. “”Anatol Matasaru was detained for five hours and accused of not properly informing the mayor, non-observance of police orders, opposition to arrest and insulting police and prosecutors.  He said he was hit by a police officer while in detention. “(Amnesty International) [Accessed January 4, 2012]
All of this leads to the conclusion that, objectively, the applicant’s fear of persecution is unfounded, not having a real foundation.2.C. Analysis of the cumulative fulfillment of the conditions for giving the presumption of good faithHis statements were not considered plausible as to whether he was persecuted by the authorities, given that the party whose very important member was, is currently in power. Must,  also took into account the fact that the one in question chose the first time to apply for asylum in Poland, although he would have had the opportunity to come directly to Romania. Moreover, because the procedure was prolonged, he went to Germany illegally. It was only when he realized that he could not get the protection of either country, especially because he had been forbidden to enter Shengen for a period of five years, then chose to come to Romania and ask for protection. In addition, it should be noted that the applicant knew about the possibility of such asylum in Romania as of 30.07.2009 when he submitted the petition to Traian Basescu at the Embassy of Romania, receiving the answer that he must be on the territory of Romania to lodge such a request. The applicant himself also explained that in 2010 he was recommended to obtain a visa to enter Romania, and yet he chose to go to Belaurs, then went to Poland and Germany.In this regard, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining the Refugee State under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 New York Protocol, paragraph 62, p. 17, distinguishes between the notion of migrant and refugee, respectively, “a migrant is a person who, for reasons other than those contained in the definition, voluntarily leaves the country with a view to establishing it elsewhere. He can move from the desire of change or adventure, for familiar reasons or for other personal reasons. “Therefore, a distinction must be made between these two categories of people because, unlike immigrants, refugees do not choose to leave their country of origin , but they are forced by certain circumstances to do so. The key difference between “refugees” and “migrants” is that they enjoy the protection of the state of origin, while the refugees do not.There is no causal link between the arguments retained during the interview for which the applicant does not want to return to his home country and the purpose which led him to ask for the protection of the Romanian state, also taking into account the fact that he failed to make clear evidence of the elements of persecution.In view of the above, we appreciate that the applicant does not apply the provisions of Article 15 of Law No. 122/2006, with subsequent amendments and completions, regarding the presumption of good faith.From the analysis of the fundamental concept of fear based on persecution, in terms of the two elements that make up it, the subjective and objective element does not result in the existence of a real basis of fear of a probability of persecution within the meaning of the legal provisions on granting the state of refugee .2.d. ConclusionTaking into consideration the above mentioned, Mr. Plop Andrei’s request does not meet the conditions stipulated in article 23 paragraph (1) of the Law No. 122/2006, as amended, and the subsequent completions, for granting refugee status.3. Analysis of the asylum application from the point of view of the elements of the definition of subsidiary protection.A notable difference between the refugee state and the subsidiary protection is that the latter is granted for cases that do not qualify for the granting of refugee status and where there is a risk of life injuries, and the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment on grounds other than those provided for in Article 23 of Law No. 122/2006, with subsequent modifications and completions: race, religion, nationalism, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. That is clearly apparent from the wording of Article 26 (1)3.A. Analysis of the serious risk of sentencing to death or executing such a punishmentWith regard to the provisions of Article 26 (2) (1) of the applicant’s statements, he does not appear to be in danger of being convicted of the death penalty or the execution of such a penalty, because, although he has asked, he did not refer to it.3.B Analysis of the serious risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentThe lack of credibility of the claimant’s statements on general issues determines that there is no serious risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the country of origin.With regard to paragraph 2, the applicant has not provided any circumstantial evidence that there is a serious and present risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if he returns to his / her country of origin.
3.C. Analyzing the serious risk of serious threats, individual, to life or integrity, as a result of generalized violence in situations of domestic or international armed conflict, if the applicant is part of the civilian population.At the same time, it is remembered that the state of Moldova is not involved in an internal or international armed conflict in order to analyze whether the applicant risks a serious, individual threat to his life of integrity when he returns to his country of origin.Internal armed conflict  is defined in the literature as a form of violence within a state, which has held a certain degree of intent and a certain balance between the armed forces of the legal and rebel governments, and which presuppose the existence of an organized civil authority.3.D. ConclusionTaking into consideration the above mentioned, Mr. Plop Andrei’s request does not meet the conditions stipulated in article 26 of the Law no. 122/2006, with the subsequent amendments and completions, for the granting of the sibidous protection.The attached information on remedies is an integral part of this judgment.Dana Oprea

Signature