situation in Syria. The Regional Court further stated that the asylum seeker had been referring to himself as a Syrian citizen; he did not state in the beginning of the procedure that he was a Palestinian refugee and had not stated any problems he had had due to his Palestinian descent. The Regional Court also stated that the asylum seeker had not stated that he was under the protection of UNRWA due to his status and that in his case the protection failed or ceased, in a way which would be necessary for the application of Article 12, Sec. 1(a) of the qualification directive. The asylum seeker decided not to file a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.524 A.B.S.D., male, 36 years old, Palestinian refugee born in Syria (21 August 2014) The asylum seeker applied for international protection in the Czech Republic, stating that he lived until the beginning of 2013 in the Al-Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria, when he travelled to Lebanon, where he stayed until March 2014. Among other claims, he stated that he left Syria in the beginning of 2013, when the Al-Yarmouk camp was bombed, and he lost everything he had in the camp. The asylum seeker submitted to the Ministry of Interior a statement about how the El Kott judgment should be considered in his application. The asylum seeker received a decision on 21 August 2014, in which the Ministry of Interior stated with respect to Article 1D that the Ministry of interior did not apply Article 15(3)(a) of the Asylum Act (equivalent to Article 12(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive), i.e. the rule that asylum cannot be granted in cases where the asylum seeker avails himself or herself of the protection or enjoys support from United Nations bodies other than the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugee. The Ministry of Interior further stated: “Furthermore the administrative body highlights the confusion of the documents, which state that the asylum seeker qualifies to be granted asylum under Art. 15 sec.3 a) of the Asylum Act.” The cited provision does not amend the conditions for being granted asylum, but only lists the conditions upon which asylum cannot be granted. The asylum seeker therefore de facto stated by this document that he knows that he cannot be granted asylum. Despite that, the Ministry of Interior considered whether the asylum seeker qualifies for being granted asylum, as obliged by the Asylum Act. For completeness the administrative body adds that although cases of applicants for international protection registered in UNRWA as Palestinian refugees often are brought before it, the cited article of the Asylum Act has so far never been applied, which should be, undoubtedly, very well known by persons providing legal assistance to applicants for international protection.” The asylum seeker has decided to file an action with the Municipal Court in Prague against the decision of the Ministry of Interior.525 110 524 525 Ibid. Ibid. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees