The Municipal Court in Prague has dismissed the action and has stated in its decision that the asylum seeker has not substantiated that he has ceased to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA. The court has also stated that the asylum seeker has left the area where UNRWA operates voluntarily, and that this cannot be sufficient to show that protection has ceased within the meaning of Article 1D. Furthermore, the court has stated that the asylum seeker has not proven that he has actually been provided with protection or assistance from UNRWA. The Court considered a proof of registration of the asylum seeker with UNRWA insufficient. The asylum seeker filed a cassation complaint against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed the complaint on 14 August 2014 and stated that the Ministry of Interior is not obliged to consider the application of Article 12, Sec. 1(a) if the asylum seeker does not state during the procedure that s/he actually accessed the protection or assistance of UNRWA, and that s/he has ceased to access this assistance or protection for reasons independent of his or her volition. The Supreme Administrative Court further stated that registration with UNRWA does not prove that the asylum seeker had in reality accessed the protection of UNRWA; registration with UNRWA is not an indisputable proof of the real protection or assistance received. According to the Court, therefore, the Ministry of Interior was not obliged to consider the application of Article 12 Sec. 1(a) of the Qualification Directive merely because the asylum seeker has presented a proof of his registration with UNRWA.523 A. A. Z., male, years old 46, Palestinian refugee from Syria (3 September 2013) The asylum seeker applied for international protection in the Czech Republic on 13 February 2013. In his application, he stated that he left Syria after he had been detained and repeatedly persecuted both by security forces and by rebel forces. He further stated that there was no future for him and his family in Syria, because Palestinians face hardships in Syria, and therefore he decided to leave for Europe with his family. He submitted a record of registration with UNRWA to the Ministry of Interior, along with a statement about how the El Kott judgment should be considered in his application. He received a decision of the Ministry of Interior on 3 September 2013, granting him subsidiary protection for 12 months. The decision included the following reasoning on the exclusion clause: […] 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 support from United Nations Organization bodies or professional organizations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; if for any reason that protection or support is no longer available to persons for whom the final decision on their status has 108 523 Information provided by Beáta Szakácsová. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees