El Kott: Two years later, in El Kott v Hungary,102 the CJEU considered Article 1D again, confirming its holdings in Bolbol, and this time focusing on the circumstances in which protection or assistance from another UN agency has ceased “for any reason,” interpreting this phrase in a narrower sense than the plain meaning of the 1951 Convention. The Court made the following key findings: 1) Persons who have registered with UNRWA or received UNRWA’s assistance will not be excluded from refugee status if that assistance has ceased for reasons “beyond [their] control” and “independent of [their] volition” (Paras 59-61); however, “mere absence from [UNRWA’s area of operations] or a voluntary decision to leave it cannot be regarded as cessation of assistance” (Para 59);103 2) A person will be considered to have been forced to leave UNRWA’s area of operation where that person’s personal safety was at serious risk and it was impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that their “living conditions in that area will be commensurate with the mission entrusted to that agency” (Para 63). With respect to the geographical area of possible return, the Court’s reference point is the UNRWA field of operation in which the applicant previously lived (this becomes a point of dispute in subsequent jurisprudence, as set out below). 3) Where UNRWA’s assistance has ceased for reasons beyond the control of the applicant, and other exclusion clauses are not applicable, the applicant is automatically (ipso facto) entitled to refugee status -but they are required to have made an application for refugee status (Para 81).104 An earlier opinion of the Advocate General Sharpston in this case observed that it was “common ground that UNRWA was not set up to provide, nor has it ever provided, ‘protection’ to Palestinian refugees. It is not in a position to provide anything other than ‘assistance’.”105 Serin Alheto: In a 2018 case interpreting Article 1D, Serin Alheto v Bulgaria,106 the CJEU found that: 1) Article 1D, as lex specialis, must be considered prior to Article 1A of the 1951 Convention; 2) Prior registration with UNRWA does not necessarily mean that the applicant could access sufficient protection in an UNRWA area; and 3) Palestinians are not included under the second paragraph of Article 1D and automatically entitled to protection under the 1951 Convention if they could be admitted to any area where they could access effective assistance or protection from UNRWA and could live there in safe and dignified conditions for as long as necessary. XT: The CJEU decided Germany v XT107 in 2021, expanding on previous jurisprudence. The key issue before the CJEU was whether UNRWA’s area(s) of operation should be considered as five separate “fields” or as a whole, in relation to Article 1D. The CJEU makes two key holdings: 102 El Kott, A Radi and Ismail v Bevándorlási És Állampolgársági Hivatal (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-364/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:826, 19 December 2012). https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/cjeu-el-kott-and-others-case-c-36411 103 Ibid, Para 59-61. See also Para 51: “to accept that voluntary departure from UNRWA’s area of operations and, therefore, voluntary renunciation of the assistance provided by that agency would trigger the application of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 would run counter to the objective pursued by the first subparagraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention, which is intended to exclude from the benefits of the convention all persons who receive such assistance.” However, further consideration is needed where a person who voluntarily left UNRWA’s area of operation cannot return for reasons beyond their control. See further discussion at p 21 of this report. 104 Ibid, Para 81. See also UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection, No. 13, n 6. 105 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 13 September 2012, Case C-364/11 Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott Chadi Amin A Radi Hazem Kamel Ismail, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62011CC0364&from=EN, fn 6. 106 Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-585/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:584, 25 July 2018). https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/cjeu-alheto-case-c-58516 107 Federal Republic of Germany v XT (Court of Justice of the European Union, C507/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:3, 13 January 2021). https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/cjeu-bundesrepublik-deutschland-v-xt-case-c-50719 18