On 5 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) published its judgment in the case of HA v the United Kingdom (application no 30919/20) regarding the case of a young Stateless Palestinian Refugee male from the Ein El-Hilweh Refugee Camp in Lebanon asserting a fear and real risk of article 3 ECHR serious harm on return, on account of forced recruitment by one of the terrorist extremist organisations in the camp.

In the ECtHR’s judgment it unanimously declared the application admissible before the Court, stating that the complaint raises sufficiently complex issues of fact and law. On the merits, it found that the applicant’s expulsion to Lebanon would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court noted the specific question of forced recruitment to terrorist organisations and found that the UK Upper Tribunal had failed to examine the real risk of serious harm on return and that this failure was not remedied by the Court of Appeal on request for permission to appeal. The ECtHR therefore found that it could examine this question.

The ECtHR acknowledged that the 'risk of recruitment to extremist groups’ was a ‘risk accepted by the FTT’ and observed the specific evidence in a 2018 email from the United Nations Relied and Works Agency (UNRWA) relied upon by the applicant that UNRWA cannot provide assistance and has no protection mandate over Ein El-Hilweh Refugee Camp in Lebanon where HA was at risk of forced recruitment, and where HA would be returned upon expulsion from the UK. The Court observed this blanket lack of protection mandate for UNRWA was reflected in New Zealand case-law, relied upon by the applicant. However, the ECtHR held that there was ‘no evidence of any serious harm to the applicant if returned to the Ein El-Hilweh camp on account of attempts to recruit him to extremist armed groups, and therefore found no violation of Article 3.

The judgment can be read here.

Following the issuance of the ECtHR’s judgment on 5 December 2023, HA is considering next steps. Prior to this judgment both UK Domestic, and Court of Justice of the European Union case-law have not recognised the lack of any protection mandate of UNRWA, a point of fact and law arguably determinative on why Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol does not apply to asylum claims made by Stateless Palestinian Refugees. HA is represented by Dr. S Chelvan, Head of Immigration and Public Law at 33 Bedford Row Chambers and Case Leader, with instructing solicitor; Vanessa Delgado, Consultant Solicitor, Duncan Lewis Solicitors (Swansea). Dr S Chelvan led Haydee Dijkstal, Head of International Law at 33 Bedford Row Chambers for the substantive reply following communication to the UK. Dr Chelvan led Aqsa Hussain, Barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers for the original July 2020 application.