Cyprus – Administrative Court of International Protection, A.B. v. the Republic of Cyprus, Reg. no. 1118/18, 5 June 2020

The Court started by rejecting the Government’s argument that the applicant never received UNRWA protection, since the case file included documents proving his Gaza residence, an UNRWA registration card and a document recording the date of exit from the region. As the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) already clarified in C-31/09, Nawras Bolbol v Hungary, registration with UNRWA is sufficient proof of actual provision of protection by the agency.

Moving on to the application of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Court referred to C-364/11 (El Kott) and C-585/16 (Alheto), noting that the applicant is not required to prove fear of persecution but the asylum authorities have to examine whether the applicant was receiving UNRWA protection and whether that protection has ceased. An individual examination of the case will reveal whether the protection ceased because the applicant was forced to leave the region where the actor of protection (UNRWA) operates due to a personal situation of serious insecurity for reasons that are objective and that lack of protection not be addressed by that actor of protection.

Looking into the findings of the asylum authorities, the Court noted that there is a risk of serious harm upon return to Gaza and that the authorities there “are not able to provide sufficient protection against persecution and serious harm due to the ongoing hostilities”. Consequently, the applicant cannot avail himself of any sort of effective protection by UNRWA, while the objective situation that resulted in this lack of protection has been the subject of numerous humanitarian reports. Following the El Kott interpretation, the applicant should be recognised as a refugee; this protection will cease if the applicant is able to return to the UNRWA operation zone and reavail himself of the agency’s protection, in accordance with C-175/08 et al.

The Court concluded that the authorities failed to recognise the applicant’s refugee status and modified the contested decision accordingly.