establish a well-founded fear in the sense of Article 1A. This was standard case law until the judgment of El Kott, but clearly does not comply with the reasoning of El Kott.461 This case was also reviewed by the Council of State, in which the council applied El Kott. It first repeats that the mere fact that the concerned person finds himself outside UNRWA’s area of operations or leaves this area voluntarily, is not enough to end the exclusion of 1D (first paragraph). The council goes on, stating that the wording “for any reason” means that the cessation of protection or assistance does not only concern events affecting UNRWA directly, such as the abolition of that agency, but also circumstances beyond the applicant’s control and independent of his or her volition, which have forced the person concerned to leave the UNRWA area of operations. To assess whether the exclusion from the Refugee Convention has ended, it must be considered whether the person’s personal safety was at serious risk and it was impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that his living conditions in that area would be commensurate with the mission entrusted to UNRWA. The council stated that the Court concluded that the applicant did not have a wellfounded fear of persecution and did not have a real risk of suffering serious harm when returning to UNRWA area of operations (subsidiary protection). Hence the Court had examined whether the applicant’s personal safety was at serious risk and whether the applicant could return to the UNRWA area of operations and whether UNRWA was able to guarantee the living conditions commensurate with its mission. The Council further states that a general situation of socio-economic difficulties does not constitute a situation where a person's safety is at serious risk. The Council of State rejected the appeal.462 Case 87475, 12 September 2012463 In another decision, issued on 12 September 2012, the CCE construed Article 1D in a similar fashion to a 2010 decision,464 focusing on the possibility of return to an UNRWA area. In this case, an UNRWA-registered Palestinian from the Lebanese Refugee Camp, Nahr al Bared, claimed that after he defected from the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – an anti-Fatah political group), he was targeted by the group. The CGRA had concluded that the applicant should be excluded from the Refugee Convention in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 1D, because he was 461 Information provided by Marjan Claes. Conseil d’État, “Case 222652 [Dutch],” February 27, 2013, http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/ Arresten/222000/600/222652.pdf. 463 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 87475 [Dutch],” September 12, 2012, 87475, http:// www.rvv-cce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A87475.AN.pdf. 464 BADIL Resource Center, Closing Protection Gaps: A Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees in States Signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Jurisprudence Regarding Article 1D 2005-2010, Revised Edition (Bethlehem, Palestine, 2011), 27–28, http://www.BADIL. org/phocadownload/BADIL_docs/publications/handbook/update2011/country%20profile/ handbook2010.pdf. 462 Survey of Protection at the National Level 95