Article 12(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive, which provides for an exclusion ground from refugee status where the applicant benefits from protection or assistance from, inter alia, UNRWA, constitutes a lex specialis, and therefore requires an assessment of whether the applicant receives such assistance or protection. In addition, a person registered with UNRWA who receives effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country which is not the territory of her habitual residence but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency must be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country in accordance with Article 35 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and therefore may not obtain asylum in the EU. The Court lays down the conditions under which the applicant may be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country.
The case concerns a stateless person of Palestinian origin refused asylum in Hungary. The question answered by the CJEU concerned the circumstances in which a person is considered to be receiving "protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than [UNHCR]" within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) of 2004 Qualification Directive, and may therefore be entitled to refugee status when that protection or assistance ceases. The CJEU held that a person receives such protection or assistance when that person has actually availed themselves of that protection or assistance, and not if they are entitled to but have not done so.
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU (hereafter recast Qualification Directive).
The applicant requested international protection in Germany as he no longer had access to protection from the UNRWA in Syria.
The national Court referred 5 questions to the CJEU to determine whether the applicant satisfied the conditions under Article 12(1) according to which, in essence, if the protection or assistance from UNWRA has ceased for any reason, without the position of persons receiving that protection or assistance being definitely settled, those persons are ipso facto entitled to the benefits of Directive 2011/95.
The case concerned the interpretation of Articles 2(f) and 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (hereafter recast Qualification Directive).
The national court referred two questions, concerning: i) the interpretation of article 15(c) in respect of how the degree of arbitrary violence in an armed conflict should be measured and ii) whether the assessment as to the existence of a serious and individual threat should be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case or should be based on determined factors.
The Court held that the interpretation of Article 15(c) must preclude the use of the threshold of minimum civilian casualties as the only determining factor but should be based on a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case.
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of EU Directive 2004/83. The question before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was how to determine who should have access to guarantees provided by Article 12, and what those guarantees entailed. The CJEU held that individuals who had received protection from a non-High Commissioner for Refugees (‘HCR’) UN organisation, but ceased to receive this protection due to a reason beyond their control, should automatically be granted refugee status by a Member State unless they fall into one of the exceptions of Article 12.
The applicant challenged a decision depriving him of his British citizenship and excluding him from the United Kingdom because of his alleged involvement and link to terrorist-related activities. After failing in his appeals to the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the applicant complained to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under Articles 8 and 14. The Court rejected all of the applicant’s complaints, finding them to be manifestly ill-founded, and declared the application inadmissible.
The applicant was born in South Africa, and subsequently lived in Zimbabwe and Spain before arriving to Luxembourg, where he applied for the recognition of his statelessness status. The request was initially refused by the authorities since the applicant was not residing legally in Luxembourg at the time he submitted the application, but the courts ruled in applicant's favour, finding that the applicants residence status in Luxembourg is irrelevant for establishing whether he is stateless.
The applicant is a stateless Palestinian from Lebanon, who was denied statelessness status recognition as he was found to fall under the exclusion grounds of the 1954 Convention, even after leaving the territory under UNRWA mandate.
The applicant is a Palestinian from Syria, who holds a refugee status in Hungary. He also applied for a recognition as a stateless person in Luxembourg. The Court found that the 1954 Statelessness Convention was conceived as complementary to the Refugee Convention. Since the applicant as a refugee in Hungary received at least as good a protection as a Palestinian in an UNRWA protected territory, the latter category being explicitly excluded from the protection scope of the 1954 Convention, the applicant did not qualify for the recognition of a statelessness status in Luxembourg.
Applicants requested to be recognised as stateless in addition to having already been recognised as refugees. The judgments deals with the question of whether refugee status is comparable in rights to the status of nationals within the meaning of the exclusion clause in Article 1(2) of the 1954 Convention. The Court sides with the applicants confirming their right to be recognised as stateless persons in addition to having been granted asylum-based residence status.
The applicant was born in Syria, where he was involved in violence in the context of an armed conflict. During his life in France he was convicted if multiple crimes and served prison sentences. His application for the statelessness status was rejected for two reasons - firstly, he did not show sufficient efforts to obtain or confirm his Syrian nationality, and secondly he fell under the exclusion clauses of the 1954 Convention - the latter having been the reason for rejecting his asylum claim too. The Court upheld the administrative decision on both grounds.
The applicant claimed to have been born in Kuwait to parents of Palestinian origin. OFPRA denied him stateless status on the basis that neither his Palestinian origin nor his place of birth being Kuwait could be confirmed, and the Court upheld this administrative decision. The Court also ruled that Palestinians who are outside of the UNRWA territory are in principle not excluded from protection under the 1954 Convention.