16.2.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/8

(Case C-364/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Stateless persons of Palestinian origin who have in fact availed themselves of assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - The right of those stateless persons to recognition as refugees on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 - Conditions under which applicable - Cessation of UNRWA assistance ‘for any reason’ - Evidence - Consequences for the persons concerned seeking refugee status - Persons ‘ipso facto … entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive’ - Automatic recognition as a ‘refugee’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83 and the granting of refugee status in accordance with Article 13 thereof)

2013/C 46/14

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott, Chadi Amin A Radi, Hazem Kamel Ismail

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

intervening party: ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztossága,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fovárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Stateless persons of Palestinian origin who have availed themselves of the protection of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Whether such a stateless person is ipso facto entitled to the benefits of Directive 2004/83/EC where the protection provided by that agency ceases — Circumstances under which the protection may be deemed to have come to an end — The meaning of being ‘entitled to the benefits of this Directive’

Operative part of the judgment

1.The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that the cessation of protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the High Commission for Refugees (HCR) ‘for any reason’ includes the situation in which a person who, after actually availing himself of such protection or assistance, ceases to receive it for a reason beyond his control and independent of his volition. It is for the competent national authorities of the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application made by such a person to ascertain, by carrying out an assessment of the application on an individual basis, whether that person was forced to leave the area of operations of such an organ or agency, which will be the case where that person’s personal safety was at serious risk and it was impossible for that organ or agency to guarantee that his living conditions in that area would be commensurate with the mission entrusted to that organ or agency.

2.The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of the Member State responsible for examining the application for asylum have established that the condition relating to the cessation of the protection or assistance provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is satisfied as regards the applicant, the fact that that person is ipso facto ‘entitled to the benefits of [the] directive’ means that that Member State must recognise him as a refugee within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the directive and that person must automatically be granted refugee status, provided always that he is not caught by Article 12(1)(b) or (2) and (3) of the directive.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.