JUDGMENT OF 13. 1. 2021 – CASE C-507/19 BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND (REFUGEE STATUS OF A STATELESS PERSON OF PALESTINIAN ORIGIN) … … 3. In order to comply with paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that an effective remedy provides for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, including, where applicable, an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to [Directive 2011/95], at least in appeals procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance. …’ German law 16 Directive 2011/95 was transposed into German law by the Asylgesetz (Law on asylum), in the version published on 2 September 2008 (BGBl. 2008 I, p. 1798, ‘the AsylG’). 17 Article 3(3) of the AsylG reproduces, in essence, Article 12(1)(a) of that Directive. 18 Paragraph 77(1) of the AsylG provides: ‘In disputes falling within the scope of this law, the court shall rely on the situation of fact and of law obtaining at the time of the last hearing; if a judgment is given without a hearing, the relevant point in time shall be that at which the judgment is given. …’ The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 19 XT, a stateless person of Palestinian origin born in 1991 in Damascus (Syria), holds a UNRWA registration card as a member of the Yarmouk refugee camp, which is located in the southern part of Damascus. 20 Between October 2013 and 20 November 2015, XT held casual jobs in Lebanon where he was resident. Having not obtained a residence permit in that country and fearing expulsion by the Lebanese security forces, he decided, at the end of November 2015, to return to Syria, to the city of Qudsaya, west of Damascus, where members of his family were staying. 21 Due to the war and the very poor living conditions in Syria, XT left that country a few days later; he fears that that he will be arrested if he returns. In addition, before XT left Syria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Lebanon closed their borders to Palestinian refugees in Syria. 22 XT arrived in Germany in December 2015, where he lodged an application for international protection in February 2016. 23 By decision of 29 August 2016, the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Germany) rejected XT’s application for refugee status but granted him subsidiary protection status. 24 By judgment of 24 November 2016, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court, Germany) upheld XT’s appeal and ordered the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees to grant him refugee status, on the ground that, irrespective of any previous persecution, it was clear from the situation in Syria that XT was at risk of persecution due to serious grounds which arose after his departure from Syria, linked not only to that departure, but also to his application for international protection and his stay abroad. 6 ECLI:EU:C:2021:3