JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 2018 — CASE C-585/16 ALHETO 60 Ms Alheto brought an action before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria) for annulment of the contested decision. She maintained that some of the evidence put forward during individual interviews had not been examined, in breach of Article 75 of the ZUB, and that the evidence that had been examined had, itself, been incorrectly assessed, in breach of Articles 8 and 9 of the ZUB. 61 That court considers that the DAB should, in principle, have examined the application for international protection lodged by Ms Alheto on the basis of Article 12(1)(4) of the ZUB and not on the basis of Articles 8 and 9 of that law. The contested decision does not therefore comply with the ZUB or with the corresponding rules laid down in Directive 2011/95, in particular Article 12(1)(a) of that directive. 62 However, that court observes that Article 12(1)(4) of the ZUB fails correctly to transpose Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 which, it says, complicates the handling of the application for international protection at issue in the main proceedings. 63 Furthermore, having regard to the obligation to ensure an effective remedy, and in particular to the requirement for a full and ex nunc examination, set out in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, it is necessary to determine, inter alia in the light of Articles 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the scope of the jurisdiction laid down by the EU legislature. It is important, inter alia, to ascertain, in the context of such a full and ex nunc examination, whether the court may factor into its assessment matters, including grounds of inadmissibility, which could not be taken into account when the contested decision rejecting the application for international protection was adopted. 64 In that context, the referring court wishes, in particular, to know whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person registered with UNRWA who has fled the Gaza Strip and stayed in Jordan before travelling to the European Union must be considered to be sufficiently protected in Jordan, with the result that the application for international protection lodged in the European Union must be declared inadmissible. 65 Finally, the question arises whether, after the annulment of a decision rejecting an application for international protection, the court may, or must, itself adopt a decision on the application for international protection. 66 In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does it follow from Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 78(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that: (a) it is permissible for an application for international protection made by a stateless person of Palestinian origin who is registered as a refugee with [UNRWA] and who, before making that application, was resident in that agency’s area of operations (the Gaza Strip) to be examined as an application under Article 1(A) of the [Geneva Convention] rather than as an application for international protection under the second [paragraph] of Article 1(D) of that convention, where responsibility for examining the application has been assumed on grounds other than compassionate or humanitarian grounds and the examination of the application is governed by Directive 2011/95; (b) it is permissible for such an application to be examined without taking into account the conditions laid down in Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, with the result that the interpretation of that provision by the Court of Justice … is not applied? ECLI:EU:C:2018:584 13