– while fully intending to return and genuinely believing that he will be able to do so, but finds that in fact his re-entry into the territory in which he received assistance is blocked. Such a person should, in my view, be considered as prevented from receiving UNRWA assistance for a reason beyond his control or independent of his volition.”472 UNHCR confirms this position in its “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.”473 The Council approved the interpretation of the Advocate General and took the view that a proper examination of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention requires consideration of the question of whether return to the area of UNRWA assistance is possible or not. Other decisions of the CCE since the judgment in El Kott follow the reasoning of the CJEU. See e.g.: CCE Case No. 96.656474 (7 February 2013); Case No. 111.106475 (30 September 2013); and Case No. 116.646476 (9 January 2014): The Council observes that the European Court of Justice, following a new request for a preliminary ruling concerning article 12, 1, sub a) of the Qualification Directive, recently has clearly stated that the 1st paragraph of article 1D of the Refugee Convention cannot be interpreted in this way, that the mere fact that a Palestinian refugee finds himself outside UNRWA area of operations or voluntarily has left this area suffices to end the exclusion contained in this clause (CJEU 19 December 2012, C-364/11, El Kott v. Bevándorlási és Államolgársági Hivatal, §49). On the other hand an additional examination in the sense of Article 1A of the Refugee Convention is in principle not necessary for asylum seekers originating from this area of operations. The European Court of Justice states that in the first place by carrying out an assessment of the application on an individual basis it needs to be examined if the departure of the person concerned from the area of operations may be justified by reasons beyond his control and independent of his [volition] and thus prevent[ing] him from receiving UNRWA assistance. (HvJ 19 december 2012, C-364/11, El Kott v. Bevándorlásiés Államolgársági Hivatal, § 61). This is the case, as stated by the Court in its decision, when the 472 98 Court of Justice of the European Union, “Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Delivered N 13 September 2012 - Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott and Others v. Bevándorlási És Állampolgársági Hivatal (C-364/11),” September 13, 2012, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?te xt=&docid=126801&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=934592. 473 UNHCR, “2013 Note,” 5. 474 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 96656 [Dutch],” February 7, 2013, http://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A96656.AN.pdf. 475 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 111106 [Dutch],” September 30, 2013, http://www. rvv-cce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A111106.AN.pdf. 476 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 116646 [French],” January 9, 2013, http://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A116646.AN.pdf. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees