The applicant is a stateless person of Palestinian origin who was born in a refugee camp in Lebanon. He applied for protection in the UK on several grounds, including that he was at risk of harm in breach of Article 3 ECHR because of attempts to recruit him to extremist armed factions in the camp, but his application was rejected. The ECtHR accepted that there was no risk in case of return to Lebanon, and found no information supporting the applicant’s argument in a EUAA (former EASO) report regarding the recruitment of young Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon. The Court found no violation of Article 3 ECHR.
1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU
The applicant is a stateless person of Palestinian origin, born in the Ein-El-Hilweh refugee camp ('the camp') in Lebanon. In 2017, he left the camp due to fighting between extremist groups and sought asylum in the United Kingdom. During Home Office interviews, he asserted that he could not return to the camp in Lebanon because extremist groups had repeatedly attempted to recruit him.
In 2018, the applicant's asylum claim was denied. The Secretary of State contested that the applicant had been a victim of targeted recruitment by extremist groups in the camp. Additionally, it was argued that he was not entitled to claim asylum under Article 1D of the Refugee Convention, which excludes from its scope individuals receiving protection from UN organs/agencies, such as UNRWA. The State also rejected the claim that he faced a risk of treatment contrary to Article 2 or 3 ECHR upon returning to the refugee camp.
The applicant appealed this decision at the First-Tier Tribunal, invoking Article 15(c) of the EU Qualification Directive and Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. The Judge acknowledged the risk of recruitment but maintained that the applicant was excluded under Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, the Judge found no evidence of severe ill-treatment that would suggest the cessation of UNRWA protection afforded to him as a member of the refugee camp. Regarding Article 15(c) of the EU Qualification Directive, the Judge rejected the argument that the conditions in the camp put the applicant at risk of indiscriminate violence.
Upon a subsequent appeal, the Upper Tribunal agreed with the exclusion of the applicant from the protection of the Refugee Convention by Article 1D.
The applicant argued that his return to Lebanon would expose him to a genuine subjective fear on return or that there was a risk of treatment that would breach Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR. Specifically, he argued that he faced the imminent danger of forced recruitment by extremist armed groups in the camp. He asserted that the Lebanese authorities and UNRWA could not offer adequate protection against this risk. Additionally, he maintained that the domestic courts had not thoroughly examined the evidence, such as the previous threats he had encountered in the period leading up to his departure from Lebanon. He emphasised that these threats should have been taken into account when evaluating his fear of being recruited.
Furthermore, the applicant argued that the domestic court had looked solely at the applicant’s reasons for seeking asylum and had not examined the issue of refoulement. Specifically, he argued that the domestic courts had not sufficiently considered the risk of recruitment upon his return to Lebanon.
The responding State contended that the Home Office had appropriately assessed the risk to the applicant upon return to Lebanon and had found his account lacking credibility. The domestic courts on appeal had also considered this risk, making it untenable to assert that there had been no examination of the applicant's risk upon return.
Additionally, the State reiterated its position that it did not accept the applicant was genuinely at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if returned to Lebanon. Emphasising that the applicant had not personally experienced violence, except for collateral damage from debris, and had never been involved with any extremist groups in the refugee camp according to his own account, the State argued that his rejection of recruitment advances had not resulted in any actual adverse consequences for him or his family. Therefore, the State urged the Court to find that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Court’s main concern was whether substantial grounds had been shown to believe that there was a real risk to the applicant of ill-treatment upon return to Lebanon. The Court found that, based on the facts and records of interviews conducted by the Home Office with the applicant, it did not appear that he had reported any instances of violence he had faced due to refusing recruitment. The applicant had accordingly failed to substantiate his claim that the risk of recruitment, a risk which was accepted by the FTT, would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The general conditions in the camp, although poor, did not meet the threshold of ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR.
Since the applicant had not been deported yet, it fell upon the Court to consider whether his expulsion to Lebanon would breach his rights under Article 3 ECHR and in doing this the Court could take into account any evidence that had come to light after the domestic decision. The Court concluded that there was no evidence in front of it to cause doubt on the domestic decision, i.e. that the applicant would not face ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return. Therefore, the Court held that there would be no violation of Article 3 ECHR in the event of the applicant’s expulsion.
The Court held that there would be no violation of Article 3 ECHR in the event of the applicant’s return to Lebanon.
- Auad v. Bulgaria, No. 46390/10, 11 October 2011.
- KK, IH, HE (Palestinians-Lebanon-camps) Lebanon CG ((2004) UKAIT 00293).
- MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians – KK, IH, HE CG reaffirmed) Lebanon CG ((2008) UKAIT 00014).
- F. G. v. Sweden [GC], No. 43611/11, 23 March 2016
- J. K. and others v. Sweden [GC], No. 59166/12, 23 August 2016.
- N. D and N. T. v. Spain [GC], Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020.
- Radomilja and others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, 20 March 2018.