A stateless Palestinian applicant born and raised in a refugee camp in Lebanon, requested asylum in Denmark in 2021, arguing that he was suffering from an illness and feared dying if he returned to Lebanon, as he would not receive proper treatment. He stated that, due to the shortage of medicine and treatment in Lebanon, he would not be able to obtain his vital medication there, either from hospitals or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He also stated that as a Palestinian, he did not have the same rights as others in Lebanon.  The Danish Immigration Service (DIS) excluded the applicant from protection on the grounds of Article 1D(1) of the Geneva Convention due to his registration with UNRWA, arguing that, as a registered Palestinian, he had previously received, among other things, medical care in Lebanon.

The Danish Refugee Board upheld the DIS assessment,  recalling that, while health-related or other socio-economic circumstances may give rise to a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, they are generally not considered grounds for international protection unless they are themselves related to persecution or a risk of serious harm. Drawing on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Paposhvili v Belgium (13 December 2016), the Board noted that, in such circumstances, health-related conditions may be weighed in the international protection procedure. In this case, the Board found that there was no basis to establish that the applicant would be exposed to persecution due to his illness upon return to Lebanon as a stateless Palestinian, or that he would be at real risk of being exposed to conditions covered by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if he returned to Lebanon. The Board referred to background information, including Danish Immigration Service (DIS) report Lebanon, Access to Health Care Services for Palestinian Refugees (February 2023) and specifically MedCOI information prepared by the EUAA on 1 July 2024, pointing at the availability of the medicine and other treatment that the applicant was taking in Lebanon, either free of charge from UNRWA or for a fee. In addition, the Board noted that the applicant had visited Lebanon in 2021 after submitting an asylum application in Denmark, and in 2023, indicating that the applicant had a network in the country that could assist him.

Based on this, the board also concluded that it could not be established that the applicant was in a state of personal insecurity or that it would be impossible for UNWRA to ensure his living conditions consistent with UNRWA’s task performance. In conclusion, the Board referred to the CJEU case OFPRA v SW (C‑294/22, 5 October 2023). The Board ruled that, while the general conditions in Lebanon, including for stateless Palestinians, are very difficult, they are not of such a nature that, when taken together with the background information, they can, in themselves, form the basis for a residence permit in Denmark under the asylum rules. The board held that the applicant's reference to his family and his relationship with ECHR Article 8 could not lead to a different assessment of the asylum issue.