and the house he lived in regularly for 4 years, as a result of which he was injured several times. The Court found that the claim of the plaintiff was substantiated. It also took the view that since 2007, Hamas exercises authority of the state in the Gaza Strip, and since the plaintiff left the Gaza Strip having been persecuted, it cannot be excluded that Hamas would not persecute the plaintiff should he return. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not able to access any internal flight alternatives. First, he would not get a residence permit for Israel, and if he could enter Israel, he would likely be sent to the Gaza Strip or to the West Bank. Second, even if the plaintiff was able to live in the West Bank, which is mostly controlled by Fatah (from whom he could receive protection), he would still need permission to enter the West Bank from Israeli authorities, which he would not get. Case 34 X 54.07 The Administrative Court of Berlin ruled in its decision on 23 January 2012 that a revocation of the entitlement of asylum was not warranted. The plaintiff was a Palestinian from Lebanon who was granted asylum in Germany in 1990. He left Lebanon in April 1988 with his parents and siblings. The Amal movement had looked for him and his father. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees wanted to revoke the decision to grant asylum because the situation in Lebanon had changed. The Court took the view that the situation in Lebanon was still not stable and permanent. Especially since Palestinians face discrimination throughout Lebanon, it was highly doubtful that the state of Lebanon would be willing and able to protect Palestinians from such discrimination (the Court cited the Situation Report on Lebanon by the German Federal Office of Foreign Affairs from 26 April 2011). Protection from the Amal movement, which works with Lebanese security services, also was not likely. The Court could not find any indication that a significant change had occurred with respect to the situation of Palestinians in Lebanon and found that revocation of the entitlement to asylum (Article 16a of the German Constitution) did not come into question. Case 11 LB 97/11 136 A January 2012 decision from the High Administrative Court of Luneburg involved the granting of subsidiary protection to a Palestinian applicant. The applicant was born in Gaza and was registered with UNRWA. In 1996, he received a Ukrainian visa, and lived lawfully in the Ukraine until 2009. After he left the Ukraine, the applicant travelled through Germany as well as Norway, until he finally applied for asylum and subsidiary protection in Germany. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected the applicant’s asylum request on the basis that political persecution had not been shown. The Federal Office for Migration and Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees