Case Law

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

3 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Persons with disabilities - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Palestine, State of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

4 June 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Netherlands - Palestine, State of

1. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has ceased, it is necessary to take into account, as part of an individual assessment of all the relevant factors of the situation in question, all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein. 2. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that UNRWA’s protection or assistance cannot be regarded as having ceased where a stateless person of Palestinian origin left the UNRWA area of operations from a field in that area in which his or her personal safety was at serious risk and in which UNRWA was not in a position to provide that individual with protection or assistance, first, if that individual voluntarily travelled to that field from another field in that area in which his or her personal safety was not at serious risk and in which he or she could receive protection or assistance from UNRWA and, secondly, if he or she could not reasonably expect, on the basis of the specific information available to him or her, to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA in the field to which he or she travelled or to be able to return at short notice to the field from which he or she came, which is for the national court to verify.

13 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

In an overall assessment of the exceptional circumstances in A's case and with special regard to her very strong connection to Sweden, the Court considers that her best interests outweigh the opposing interests of the State. An expulsion of A to Lebanon can therefore not be consid-ered proportionate and would thus be in violation of the CRC. A is therefore granted a residence permit in Sweden. B and C are granted residence permits as it would be in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR to separate the family.

22 December 2020 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Right to family life | Countries: Lebanon - Sweden

1 October 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”).

28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of

22 February 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Family reunification - Immigration law | Countries: Lebanon - Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

15 August 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Social group discrimination | Countries: Australia - Lebanon

23 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Freedom of religion - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Jew - Religious discrimination - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection - Sunni | Countries: Australia - Lebanon