Cyprus – Administrative Court of International Protection, A.B. v. the Republic of Cyprus, Reg. no. 1118/18, 5 June 2020
| Country of Decision: | Cyprus |
| Country of applicant: | Palestinian Territory |
| Court name: | Administrative Court of International Protection |
| Date of decision: | 05-06-2020 |
| Citation: | Administrative Court of International Protection, A.B. v. the Republic of Cyprus, Reg. no. 1118/18, 5 June 2020 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Actors of protection
Description
"Actors such as: (a) the State; or (b) parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State; who take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of serious harm, inter alia, by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and the applicant has access to such protection." |
|
Serious harm
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. Per Art.15:"(a) death penalty or execution; or (b) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin; or (c) serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict." “Risks to which a population of a country or a section of the population is generally exposed do normally not create in themselves an individual threat which would qualify as serious harm.” |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
Headnote:
An applicant that has received protection on behalf of UNRWA is not required to prove a fear of persecution to be recognised as a refugee; the asylum authorities have to examine whether the applicant was actually receiving UNRWA protection and whether that protection has ceased.
An individual examination of the case will reveal whether the cessation of UNRWA protection resulted from objective reasons that the agency could not rectify.
Facts:
The applicant, a stateless person of Palestinian origin, applied for international protection in Cyprus. The domestic authorities decided that the applicant did not qualify for refugee status but they granted him subsidiary protection status due to the serious harm he would be exposed to upon return to Gaza.
The applicant appealed against the decision claiming that the authorities failed to recognise the protection he received from UNRWA and to grant him refugee status.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court started by rejecting the Government’s argument that the applicant never received UNRWA protection, since the case file included documents proving his Gaza residence, an UNRWA registration card and a document recording the date of exit from the region. As the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) already clarified in C-31/09, Nawras Bolbol v Hungary, registration with UNRWA is sufficient proof of actual provision of protection by the agency.
Moving on to the application of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Court referred to C-364/11 (El Kott) and C-585/16 (Alheto), noting that the applicant is not required to prove fear of persecution but the asylum authorities have to examine whether the applicant was receiving UNRWA protection and whether that protection has ceased. An individual examination of the case will reveal whether the protection ceased because the applicant was forced to leave the region where the actor of protection (UNRWA) operates due to a personal situation of serious insecurity for reasons that are objective and that lack of protection not be addressed by that actor of protection.
Looking into the findings of the asylum authorities, the Court noted that there is a risk of serious harm upon return to Gaza and that the authorities there “are not able to provide sufficient protection against persecution and serious harm due to the ongoing hostilities”. Consequently, the applicant cannot avail himself of any sort of effective protection by UNRWA, while the objective situation that resulted in this lack of protection has been the subject of numerous humanitarian reports. Following the El Kott interpretation, the applicant should be recognised as a refugee; this protection will cease if the applicant is able to return to the UNRWA operation zone and reavail himself of the agency’s protection, in accordance with C-175/08 et al.
The Court concluded that the authorities failed to recognise the applicant’s refugee status and modified the contested decision accordingly.
Outcome:
Application granted. The contested decision is modified and the applicant is recognised as a refugee.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| 3 (1) |
| 5 (1) and 19 (1) Refugee Law (Περί Προσφύγων Νόμος) |
Cited Cases:
Other sources:
- Implementation of Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) - Report of the Secretary-General (S/2019/938) [EN/AR]
- UNRWA, Occupied Palestinian Territory: emergency appeal 2020
- UNRWA, Gaza’s “great march of return”: one year on, March 2019
- Humanitarian snapshot: Casualties in the context of demonstrations and hostilities in Gaza | 30 Mar 2018 - 31 August 2019