Decision by the Supreme Administrative Court, 31 October 2002592 This case involved a stateless Palestinian refugee from Lebanon who had been living in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp and receiving assistance from UNRWA. The applicant left Lebanon on a refugee travel document issued by the Lebanese authorities, and sought asylum in Finland in April 1999. The applicant claimed to have been threatened by several rival political groups and organizations in the refugee camp. He also argued that standards of living were poor and that there were housing problems in the camp. The Directorate of Immigration and the Helsinki Administrative Court denied his request for a residence permit. The asylum seeker then appealed against the decision by the Administrative Court to the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court. Referring to the wording of Article 1D, the Administrative Court stated that parties to the Refugee Convention have applied the provision in different ways. It referred to UNHCR’s Handbook, paragraph 143, and the 2002 UNHCR Note and stated: [I]f a refugee has left UNRWA’s jurisdiction, e.g., for the lack of education or job opportunities or other related reasons of personal convenience, he cannot receive in the country of asylum the rights of the 1951 Geneva Convention nor ipso facto refugee status.593 The Court further referred to the 1996 Joint Position by the Council of the European Union, in particular point 12, stipulating that: [T]o a person who deliberately withdraws from the protection and assistance laid down in the mentioned Article 1D cannot be applied the provisions of the Convention but in these cases refugee status is determined as a rule pursuant to Article 1A(2).594 The Court concluded that Article 1D was applicable in the case because the appellant was a stateless Palestinian registered with UNRWA in Lebanon. The Court then analyzed whether the applicant could return to Lebanon, stating that: According to the information available there are no legal obstacles to A’s return. Upon return to Lebanon he can benefit further from the possibilities of resorting to the assistance of UNRWA. Therefore it does not follow from the rules of Article 1D that A would in this respect directly, pursuant to Article 1D, enjoy the benefits of the 1951 Geneva Convention.595 The Supreme Administrative Court further elaborated these arguments, stating that no facts were presented in the case relating to the appellant’s security or basic 592 122 Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, “Supreme Administrative Court Decision of 31 October 2002,” October 31, 2002, KHO:2002:69, http://www.refworld.org/publisher,FIN_ SAC,,PSE,4416a6792,0.html. 593 Ibid., 3. 594 Ibid. 595 Ibid. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees