Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Supreme Administrative Court refused the cassation complaint on 19 December 2013 and stated in its decision: “With regards to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice from December 19, 2012, Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott and others against Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, C-364/11, which interprets art. 12 section 1 a) of the directive of the Council 2004/83/ES, it is necessary for the application of art. 15 section 3 a) of the Czech Asylum Act, that protection or assistance provided by the UN for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East has ceased for reasons independent of the will of the applicant for international protection, and the applicant must have actually accessed such protection or assistance previously. The fulfillment of these conditions has to be concretely stated by the applicant for international protection during the administrative procedure.” N.F., male, 44 years old, Palestinian refugee born in Syria (7 May 2013) The asylum seeker applied for international protection in the Czech Republic. He had been a doctor in Syria and the security forces had started to look for him because he had been treating patients injured during demonstrations against the Syrian president. He had submitted to the Ministry of Interior a record of registration with UNRWA and a statement as to why and how the El Kott judgment should apply when making a decision regarding his application. He filed his application on 10 May 2012 and received a decision on May 7, 2013, granting him subsidiary protection for 12 months. The decision stated that: […] the administrative body states that according to art. 15(3)(a) of the Asylum Act, asylum cannot be granted if the third-country national avails herself/himself of the protection or enjoys the support from United Nations Organization bodies or professional organizations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; if for any reasons the protection or support is not granted to persons for whom the final decision on their status has 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 therefore the administrative body has carefully considered the application of the above-mentioned and after conducting an administrative procedure, 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 appealed against the decision to the Municipal Court, in which he argued that the Ministry of Interior interpreted Article 15(3)(a) wrongly under the El Kott decision; that once the Ministry found that he fulfilled the requirements of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention, he should have been automatically granted asylum rather than further subjected to an examination of his application under Article 1A(2). Survey of Protection at the National Level 107