In this case, the Ministry of Security and Justice appealed before the Council of State against a decision issued by the District Court of The Hague in respect of an applicant for international protection of Palestinian origin. In its decision, the District Court of The Hague ordered the Ministry for Justice and Security to re-examine the applicant’s request on the basis that the applicant fell within the scope of Article 1(d) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.  

The applicant for international protection is stateless. He is of Palestinian origin but was born in Iraq where he lived until 2006 when he moved to Egypt. The applicant first requested international protection in 2014 on the basis that, as a Palestinian, he was discriminated against in Egypt and not permitted to study, marry or access healthcare. His application for a residence permit in Egypt was also rejected on several occasions because he had not come directly from Palestine but rather from Iraq. The applicant also claimed that he had been robbed, assaulted and kidnapped while in Egypt. On 30 September 2014, the applicant’s request for international protection was rejected by the Ministry of Security and Justice on the ground that he could return to Palestine. This decision was upheld by the District Court of The Hague.  

The applicant introduced a subsequent request for international protection in 2016 which was rejected on the grounds that the applicant could return to Iraq. The District Court of Tthe Hague overturned the decision issued by the Ministry of Security and Justice on the basis that the Ministry of Security and Justice did not examine the applicant’s request in respect of Article 1(d) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The District Court of The Hague asserted that the Ministry of Security and Justice did not provide adequate reasons why the applicant fell outside the scope of Article 1(d) of the Refugee Convention and noted that the applicant’s father was registered with UNWRA and as the child of a recognised refugee, the applicant would be eligible for UNWRA support.  

The Council of State noted that while a stateless Palestinian receiving protection and assistance from UNWRA may be excluded from benefitting from international protection in the Netherlands under Article 12 (1) of the Qualification Directive such an exclusion is only valid in situations where the applicant was actually receiving assistance from UNWRA prior to submitting their request for international protection. While it is stated in the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No 13 that Palestinians who are eligible for UNWRA assistance but have not availed of such support, fall within the scope of Article 1 (d) of the Refugee Convention, the Council of State asserted that such a reading may not always be consistent with the objectives of Article 12(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive which endeavors to provide effective protection and assistance.  

The Council of State thus concluded that Article 12 (1)(a) of the Qualifications Directive did not apply to the applicant concerned as he had never received protection or assistance from UNWRA and had never resided in an area where UNWRA operated. The Council of State accordingly declared the appeal well founded and overturned the judgment of the District Court of The Hague.