discontinuation of UNRWA’s activities, or any other objective reason outside the control of the person concerned such that the person is (un)able to (re)avail themselves of the protection or assistance of UNRWA.379 It follows that the prevalent interpretation amongst host states dictates that Palestinian refugees must not be receiving any benefits from a UN organ or agency in order to be eligible for Refugee Convention coverage. The CJEU’s Interpretations of Article 1D380 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has considered the application of Article 1D to Palestinian refugees in several cases. However, the CJEU’s jurisprudence has never recognized the cessation of the UNCCP and its inability to fulfil its protection mandate as grounds to trigger Article 1D’s inclusion clause, and instead has largely adopted the false assumption that UNRWA is, in theory, capable of providing protection to Palestinian refugees. The first CJEU case to consider Article 1D was Bolbol v Hungary in 2010, in which the Court found that those who are registered with, or otherwise avail themselves of assistance provided by UNRWA, come within Article 1D and are therefore excluded from refugee status under the Refugee Convention.381 As argued by BADIL, however, the application of Article 1D to Palestinian refugees should be determined on the basis of Palestinian origin and experience of displacement, regardless of their use or non-use of services provided by UNRWA. In 2012, the CJEU upheld Bolbol in the El Kott v Hungary case, adding a restriction at variance with a good-faith interpretation of the plain language of the Refugee Convention. In El Kott, the Court specified that the phrase “for any reason” in Article 1D means a reason “beyond the control” and “independent of the volition” of the applicant,382 an interpretation which leaves a high evidentiary burden on the applicant to prove the existence of extreme and exceptional circumstances, and disregards the fact that “the key consideration should be whether a Palestinian refugee is able to access effective protection”.383 The CJEU in Serin Alheto v Bulgaria in 2018 found that Palestinians cannot benefit from the inclusion clause in Article 1D if they could be admitted to any area in which UNRWA operates.384 Similarly, the Court found in Germany v XT in 2021 that when determining 379 UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on International Protection No. 13: Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees’ (December 2017) HCR/GIP/17/13 <https://www.refworld.org/ pdfid/5a1836804.pdf> accessed 3 October 2022; UNHCR, ‘Note on UNHCR's Interpretation of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive in the context of Palestinian refugees seeking international protection’ (2013) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/518cb8c84.html> accessed 3 October 2022. 380 For more information, see Orchard, Search for Protection (n 171). 381 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Case C-31/09 Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal [2010] ECR I-05539. 382 CJEU Case C‑364/11 Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal [2012]. 383 Orchard, Search for Protection (n 171), 38. 384 CJEU Case C-585/16 Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite [2018]. 82