UNRWA’s area of operations nor a voluntary decision to leave qualify as cessation of assistance. However, if the person was forced to leave, it may lead to a finding that assistance has ceased. In so deciding, the Court stated that this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive, “which is inter alia to ensure that Palestinian refugees continue to receive protection by affording them effective protection or assistance and not simply by guaranteeing the existence of a body or agency whose task is to provide such assistance or protection.”358 Although the Court found that being forced to leave UNRWA’s area of operations is enough to assume cessation of assistance, it left it to the discretion of national authorities to decide whether an applicant’s departure was for reasons beyond his or her control.359 Nonetheless, the Court stated that “a Palestinian refugee must be regarded as having been forced to leave UNRWA’s area of operations if his personal safety is at serious risk and if it is impossible for that agency to guarantee that his living conditions in that area will be commensurate with the mission entrusted to that agency.”360 Question 1 The Court then addressed the first question, and began by noting that unlike the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Directive actually governs both refugee status and subsidiary protection status.361 Thus, “the words ‘be entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive’ in the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) […] must be understood as referring to refugee status, since that provision was based on Article 1D of the Geneva Convention and the directive must be interpreted in the light of that provision.”362 The Court observed that it would be redundant to state that the applicants concerned would ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of the Directive, “if its only purpose was to point out that the persons who are no longer excluded from refugee status […] may rely on the directive to ensure that their application for refugee status will be considered in accordance with Article 2(c) of the directive.”363 Even so, the Court found that “the fact that the persons concerned are ipso facto entitled to the benefits of Directive 2004/83 within the meaning of Article 12(1) (a) does not […] entail an unconditional right to refugee status.”364In such a case, the applicant “is not necessarily required to show that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the directive, but must nevertheless submit […] an application for refugee status, which must be examined 358 Ibid., para. 60. Ibid., para. 61. 360 Ibid., para. 63. 361 Ibid., para. 66. 362 Ibid., para. 67. 363 Ibid., para. 73. 364 Ibid., para. 75. 359 68 Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees