The applicant NB has lived with her husband and their five minor children, including their severely disabled son AB, in the United Kingdom since October 2015. With the exception of H, the youngest family member who was seven months old on the date of the order for reference, all family members are registered with UNRWA. They previously lived in the refugee camp Al Bass (Lebanon).

The applicants sought to obtain refugee status on the basis of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention, to which Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 refers. They argue that, as stateless persons who have previously claimed the protection or assistance of UNRWA, they may rely on that fact for refugee status under the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention to the extent that such protection or assistance has ceased for reasons beyond their control and beyond their will ('Claim clause').

They point out in that regard that AB did not have access to appropriate education or medical assistance in the Al Bass camp. Due to his disability, both AB and his siblings were humiliated by the surrounding community, negatively affecting the mental health and life of the entire family. This situation has been exacerbated by the extremely precarious living conditions in the camp, the discrimination faced by disabled Palestinians living in Lebanon in general, and the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in Lebanon in recent years.

In that regard, the applicants claim, referring to the judgment of 19 December 2012, El Kott, C‑364/11, that serious discrimination can be regarded as a reason which forced him to leave the working area of ​​UNRWA. They add that the discrimination resulting from the arbitrary refusal to provide persons with disabilities with access to health care and education could cause serious harm to the child victim and could even come under the notion of 'persecution' . In assessing whether such a prosecution exists, due account must be taken of the special vulnerability of the children, which in this case is exacerbated by the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, as well as of the best interests of the child, not only with regard to AB but also with regard to his brothers and sisters . In view of those considerations, the applicants consider that they have left Lebanon for objective reasons beyond their influence and that they therefore no longer benefit from UNRWA protection or assistance.

The Secretary of State disputed the right of the applicants in the main proceedings to obtain refugee status on that basis. While he admitted that AB has been discriminated against on the basis of his disability, he argued that this discrimination does not reach the level required to qualify as persecution. He further argues that AB has received sufficient assistance in Lebanon and will continue to receive it after his return. In this regard, the Secretary of State referred to the existence of an early intervention center in the Al Bass camp, which is the responsibility of a non-governmental organization and which, in its view, provides assistance to the disabled children living there.

In order to determine whether the applicants in the main proceedings are ipso facto eligible for refugee status on the basis of the facts put forward by them, it must first be clarified, according to the referring court, whether the cessation of protection or assistance from UNRWA must be examined solely based on the situation on the date of their departure, or whether the review additionally or alternatively includes circumstances that may have occurred after that date. The referring court asked who bears the burden of proof in this regard. Finally, it sought to clarify the relevant elements on the basis of which it can be established that UNRWA's protection or assistance has come to an end.

In those circumstances, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

'In assessing whether UNRWA's protection or assistance for a stateless Palestinian registered with UNRWA has ceased within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of [Directive 2004/83] with regard to the assistance for persons with disabilities:

1) Does the assessment include a purely past examination of the circumstances that would have compelled an applicant to leave UNRWA's territory at the time of departure, or shall that assessment also include an ex nunc and forward-looking assessment of whether the applicant can now invoke such protection or assistance?

(2) If the answer to the first question is that the assessment also includes a forward-looking assessment, is it legitimate for the termination clause in Article 11 to be invoked by analogy, so that if the applicant can demonstrate a valid past reason why he area of ​​UNRWA, the burden of proof lies with the Member State to demonstrate that such a reason no longer exists?

3) Are there justified objective reasons for the departure of such a person in connection with the provision of protection or assistance by UNRWA only if it is demonstrated that UNRWA or the country in which this organization operates has intentionally caused harm or assistance has remembered (by act or omission)?

4) Is it relevant to take into account the assistance provided to such persons by civil society organisations, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?”

The Court ruled that :

(1) Article 12(1)(a), second sentence, of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons otherwise in need of international protection, and the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that for the purpose of determining whether the protection or assistance of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person under that fact, to claim 'refugee status' within the meaning of this provision, the individual assessment should not only take into account the relevant circumstances prevailing at the time when that person left UNRWA's territory, but also the circumstances prevailing at the time when the competent authorities deal with an application for refugee status or the competent judicial authorities decide on an appeal against a refusal of such status.

(2) The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the assessment of whether the protection or assistance of UNRWA has ceased, so that, on the basis of that fact, a person may claim 'refugee status' within the meaning of that provision, where the person concerned proves that he has had to leave the working area of ​​UNRWA for reasons beyond his control and beyond his control, the Member State - if he considers so - must prove that the person concerned can now return to that area and benefit from such protection or assistance there.

(3) The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of determining whether the protection or assistance of UNRWA has ceased within the meaning of that provision, a person seeking international protection requested, was forced to leave the working area of ​​this organization, it is not necessary to demonstrate that UNRWA or the country in which this organization operates, through act or omission, intentionally harmed that person or withheld assistance. For the purposes of this provision, it is sufficient to establish that UNRWA's protection or assistance has effectively ceased for whatever reason,

(4) The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, read in conjunction with Article 1D of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951, must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the necessary conditions to determine whether UNRWA's protection or assistance has ceased to enable a person to claim 'refugee status' within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2004/83 on the basis of that fact must take into account shall be taken into account with the assistance provided to that person by civil society organisations, such as non-governmental organisations, provided that UNRWA has a formal and stable cooperative relationship with those organizations through which said organizations assist UNRWA in the fulfillment of its mandate.