JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 2018 — CASE C-585/16 ALHETO 94 It follows that Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 and Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 preclude a national law which fails to transpose both that ground for exclusion and that ground for no longer applying it. 95 In the present case, Article 12(1)(4) of the ZUB, in its version applicable prior to the entry into force of the national law transposing Directive 2011/95, did not provide for that ground for no longer applying the ground for exclusion. Article 12(1)(4) of the ZUB, as worded in the version subsequent to the entry into force of that law, for its part, transposed the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, but wrongly uses the expression ‘has not ceased’ instead of the expression ‘has ceased’. The referring court considers that, in those circumstances, it is difficult, or impossible, to interpret those national provisions in accordance with Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95. 96 Subject to the review to be carried out by the referring court of the possibilities provided for by Bulgarian law for the interpretation of those national provisions in accordance with Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 or Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, it must be held that the latter provisions preclude such national provisions, since those national provisions incorrectly transpose the said directives. 97 By the second part of its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 have direct effect and may be applied even if the applicant for international protection has not expressly referred to them. 98 In that regard, it follows from the settled case-law of the Court that, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon before the national courts by individuals against the State where the State has failed to implement the directive in domestic law within the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly (judgments of 24 January 2012, Dominguez, C-282/10, EU:C:2012:33, paragraph 33; of 15 January 2014, Association de médiation sociale, C-176/12, EU:C:2014:2, paragraph 31; and of 7 July 2016, Ambisig, C-46/15, EU:C:2016:530, paragraph 16). 99 The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 satisfy those criteria, since they set out a rule whose content is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by a court. Furthermore, those provisions provide that, in the circumstances to which they relate, an applicant may ‘ipso facto’ be entitled to the benefits of this directive. 100 In the present case, it follows from the order for reference that Ms Alheto claims, in support of her application for international protection, that, notwithstanding her registration with UNRWA, qualification as a refugee in the European Union is the only way effectively to protect her from the threats to which she is exposed. It follows that, even though the applicant in the main proceedings has not expressly referred either to the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 or to the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, there is nothing to prevent the referring court from ruling on whether the national legislation is compatible with either of those provisions. 101 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: – precluding national legislation which does not lay down or which incorrectly transposes the ground for no longer applying the ground for exclusion from being a refugee contained therein; – having direct effect; and ECLI:EU:C:2018:584 19