A Palestinian* applicant from Syria applied for asylum on 1 November 2023. He was imprisoned and tortured by the former regime in Syria because he was accused of having participated in a demonstration. He claimed to fear compulsory conscription upon return, problems due to his Palestinian identity, and violence by groups present there on account of the overall security situation in Syria. His application was rejected by the Minister for Asylum and Migration. The minister considered the applicant's imprisonment credible but maintained that the political security service responsible for his detention had operated under the former regime and had since been dissolved. The minister did not consider it credible that the applicant would be conscripted for military service upon return. He also concluded that the applicant did not fall within the scope of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention and therefore could not automatically be recognised as a refugee. Furthermore, the minister considered that discrimination against Palestinians in Syria was not of such a nature that it restricted the applicant's ability to secure his livelihood. The applicant had also failed to demonstrate that he would face a real risk of serious harm upon return. According to the minister, the general security situation throughout Syria corresponded to a lower level of indiscriminate violence, and the applicant had not demonstrated any individual circumstances that would expose him to an increased risk of indiscriminate violence. On appeal, the District Court of the Hague consider that the minister had not properly substantiated that there is currently a lower degree of indiscriminate violence in Syria. The minister appealed this judgment before the Council of State.

The council assessed whether the minister had adequately substantiated the country policy on Syria, particularly the assessment of the general security situation and the application of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD). The country policy had been amended in June 2025, based on the publication of an official general report on Syria of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in May 2025. The new country policy concluded that the level of indiscriminate violence was relatively low throughout Syria.  The council also noted the subsequent country information and the revised country policy adopted in 2026, following the January 2026 general country of origin information report. The minister maintained that the lower level of indiscriminate violence remained applicable throughout Syria. In the revised Article 15(c) assessment, the minister examined each governorate separately and included the impact on the humanitarian situation where relevant. However, he confirmed at the hearing that he only considered humanitarian consequences resulting from current conflict-related violence, meaning violence that had occurred during the reporting period. The humanitarian impact was specifically considered in relation to the governorates of Quneitra and Suweida.

The council ruled that the minister had failed to adequately substantiate his assessment that the level of indiscriminate violence in Syria was relatively low throughout the country, as he had not taken all relevant humanitarian circumstances into account when applying Article 15(c) of the recast QD. Referring to the CJEU judgment in CF and DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-901/19, 10 June 2021), the council recalled that all relevant circumstances characterising the situation in the country of origin must be assessed globally and that the elements listed by the court are not exhaustive. It also referred to Mohamed M'Bodj v État belge (C-542/13, 18 December 2014) and X, Y and their six children v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-125/22, 9 November 2023) as well as Advocate General Pikamäe's Opinion in X and Y, when examining the required causal connection between indiscriminate violence and humanitarian circumstances. It clarified that humanitarian circumstances may be relevant even when they are indirect or more remote consequences of indiscriminate violence, provided that they maintain a sufficiently direct causal connection with that violence. In particular, they must predominantly result from the indiscriminate violence itself or from the manner in which the armed conflict is or has been conducted.

The council further held that humanitarian consequences resulting from earlier periods of the same armed conflict must also be considered, even when the actors and balance of power have subsequently changed. It found that the fall of the former Syrian regime did not mark the beginning of an entirely new armed conflict, but rather the continuation of the existing conflict under different circumstances. In this regard, it referred to the EUAA Country Guidance: Syria (December 2025), which also takes the impact on the civilian population into account when assessing Article 15(c), highlighting that years of conflict had severely damaged Syria's infrastructure and essential services, with approximately 50% of the country's infrastructure destroyed or rendered non-functional. The council therefore considered that the minister should have assessed the continuing humanitarian consequences of the preceding years of conflict, including the destruction of housing, hospitals, roads and essential services, as well as the presence of explosive remnants of war.

Applying this framework, the council found that the minister had failed to consider the humanitarian circumstances described in the general report of 2025, including that more than 90% of the population lived below the poverty line and that the prolonged conflict had destroyed infrastructure and severely affected access to basic services. It also found that the revised 2026 country policy had not remedied this deficiency, as it only considered humanitarian consequences resulting from violence during the reporting period of the general report 2026.

The council dismissed the appeal and required the minister to take a new decision on the asylum application. The council ruled that the minister cannot only refer to the previously drawn up country policy on Syria due to the incomplete nature of that assessment, but must take into account the current humanitarian situation and the assessment framework set out in the judgment.

Palestine(*) - This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.