not been made pursuant to the provisions of the relevant resolutions made by the United Nations General Assembly, the provisions of this Act shall apply to her/him. According to the above stated therefore, the administrative body has carefully considered the application of the above-mentioned, and after conducting an administrative procedure had concluded that the applicant does not fulfill the requirements for being granted asylum according to article 12(a), (b) of the Asylum Act, which had been duly justified above.” The asylum seeker has not appealed against the decision of the Ministry of Interior, stating that the most important thing for him was to reunify with his family, and he feared the administrative bodies would refuse his family’s application for visas if he filed an appeal. The asylum seeker’s family had applied for a long-term visa for family reunification at the Czech Embassy in Beirut. It was filed by a proxy due to the hardship Palestinian refugees (especially a woman with 3 minor children) faced traveling to Lebanon from Syria. The Czech Act on the Residence of Foreigners states that the Embassy and the Ministry of Interior may waive the obligation to file the application in person in justified cases. The family requested a waiver, as they could not legally travel to Beirut at the time. The Czech Embassy in Beirut informed the asylum seeker that the embassy would not consider the application unless his wife and children filed the application for a long-term visa in person at the Czech Embassy in Beirut. A.M., male, 24 years old, Palestinian refugee born in Syria (2 October 2013) The asylum seeker left Syria because he feared that he would have to fulfill compulsory military service. He had been kidnapped by rebels in Syria and threatened because they believed he was supporting the Syrian president. At the same time, he had been threatened by the supporters of the president because he refused to make a speech on air supporting the president. He submitted his ID to the Ministry of Interior, which stated that he had a residence permit in Syria as a Palestinian refugee, and a statement explaining how El Kott applied to his case. He received a decision from the Ministry of Interior on 2 October 2013, granting him subsidiary protection for 24 months, giving the same reasoning as in the above two cases concerning the application of Article 15(3)(a) and Article 12(a)(b) of the Asylum Act. The asylum seeker appealed the decision to the Regional Court, in which he argued that the Ministry of Interior interpreted Article 15(3)(a) wrongly under El Kott, and that he should have automatically been granted asylum under Article 1D. The Regional Court in Hradec Kralove refused the appeal on 6 June 2014, stating that the asylum seeker stated in his application for international protection that the main reasons for which he left his country of origin were to avoid compulsory military service, to continue in his studies, and he feared returning to his country of origin because of compulsory military service and the worsening security Survey of Protection at the National Level 109