In addition, in accordance with the ECHR Article 8 right to private and family life, a Palestinian who lives in France and has family or personal ties in France must also be considered as no longer effectively benefiting from the assistance or protection provided by UNRWA in its area of operation. As a result, the Council of State held that the prior decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris was unlawful, and the case was remitted to the lower court for reconsideration.161 Hungary: Judgment Kfv.II.38.067/2018/6 (Hungarian Supreme Court, 13 November 2019) The Hungarian National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (NDGAP) rejected claims for protection of Palestinians as stateless persons, in light of the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations.162 The Supreme Court held that the question of whether or not Palestine is recognised as a state is exclusively the competency of the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Thereby, the acting state authority, in determining statelessness, is obliged to make an inquiry to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to decide whether or not Palestine is recognised as a state. As a result of this Supreme Court judgment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade declared that, although Hungary recognised the right of self-determination of Palestinian people in 1998, this did not mean that it recognised Palestine as a state. The main reason for that, according to the Ministry, is that the Palestinian Authority’s sovereignty over the territories under control is questionable. The Ministry also points out that despite the Palestinian passport having been recognised as a valid passport in the EU, the issuance of that document is dependent on approval from Israel (indicating a lack of state sovereignty for Palestine). The same applies to Palestinian ID cards. The statement highlights that although in some cases these documents are issued without Israel’s approval, they cannot guarantee the right to entry into Palestine. The NDGAP indicates that persons in possession of a Palestinian passport issued with Israeli permission can be regarded as Palestinian nationals; however, those not possessing this type of travel document should be recognised as stateless persons, since they cannot exercise their right to return to and enter Palestine.163 Spain: Case 994/2017 (Spanish Supreme Court, 21 March 2017) In case 994/2017,164 the Spanish Supreme Court considered the case of a Palestinian woman who had applied for statelessness status in accordance with the 1954 Convention, on the basis that Spain does not recognise Palestine as a state and that she was therefore stateless. The Supreme Court rejected the application, observing that many countries (approximately 130 countries at the time, including nine in the European Union, plus the United Nations), recognised Palestine as a state. The court held that this recognition of Palestine as a state by other countries, plus the fact that the applicant held a passport issued by the Palestinian Authority, implied that the applicant was not stateless and that she could return to Palestine. The Court observes that the aim of the 1954 Convention is to provide protection to “any person who does not have the protection and assistance of any state”165 and observes that where “the state of origin provides its protection to its national, this fact excludes statelessness.”166 However, we note that according to the 1954 Convention definition, statelessness occurs when a person 161 On remittal, the Paris Court of Appeal considered that the person concerned did indeed benefit from the effective protection of UNWRA and had not been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operation, nor was she unable to return there for reasons beyond her control. In addition, with respect to family and private life, the applicant had lived in France for less than two years and was single and without children. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the original decision denying any protective status in France. Information provided by Cécile Queval, Forum Réfugiés, by email to Patricia Cabral and Cynthia Orchard, 24 Dec 2021. 162 Hungarian Supreme Court judgment Kfv.II.38.067/2018/6 of 13 Nov 2019 available in Hungarian at: https://eakta.birosag.hu/ anonimizalt-hatarozatok. Summary provided by Hungarian Helsinki Committee. 163 Statement nr. KKM/12827-3-2020Adm of 25 Mar 2020; NDGAP decision 106-1-4229/19/2020-Ho. of 27 May 2020 (not available online). Information provided by email from Hungarian Helsinki Committee by email to Patricia Cabral and Cynthia Orchard, 28 January 2022. 164 Supreme Court, decision 994/2017 (appeal no. 2610/2016) (21 Mar 2017). 165 ibid, … ‘a cualquier persona que no tenga el amparo y apoyo de un Estado’ (p 4). 166 ibid, …‘el Estado de procedencia otorga su protección a su nacional, y ese dato excluye la apatridia’ (p 3). 30