by the Member State, or, possibly, [does it mean] neither automatically but merely [lead to] inclusion [of the person concerned within] the scope ratione personae of the Directive?'”351 The Court first observed that the 1951 Refugee Convention is the cornerstone of international refugee law, and that Directive 2004/83/EC was intended to guide EU member states in the application of the Refugee Convention. Thus, “[t]he provisions of the Directive must for that reason be interpreted in the light of its general scheme and purpose, while respecting the Geneva Convention.”352 Concerning the first question, the Court held that only those who have actually availed themselves of UNRWA assistance fall within the scope of the exclusion clause of the Refugee Convention. Thus, “for the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR, when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.”353 The Court noted that registration with UNRWA is sufficient to establish that an individual received assistance, but acknowledged that it is possible to receive assistance from UNRWA without such registration. In that instance, an applicant must be allowed to produce other evidence of assistance from UNRWA. Ms. Bolbol, a Palestinian who had never registered with UNRWA, nor appeared eligible for UNRWA registration, was not covered by Article 1D or the EU Directive. The Court also made clear that “persons who have not actually availed themselves of protection or assistance from UNRWA, prior to their application for refugee status, may, in any event, have that application examined pursuant to Article 2(c) of the Directive,”354 which is the provision that defines the term refugee. In light of its finding on the first question and the circumstances of the individual case, the Court did not address the second and third questions. 2.2.6. El Karem El Kott et al v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Office of Immigration and Nationality) (Case C-364/11) In the December 19, 2012 El Kott decision, the CJEU addressed the case of three stateless men of Palestinian origin denied asylum in Hungary. Mr. Abed El Karem El Kott fled harsh conditions at the Ein El-Hilweh UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon following the burning of his house. His asylum application in Hungary was denied, but Hungary did not order his return pursuant to the principle of non-refoulement. Similarly, Mr. A Radi left the Nahr el Bared UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon after his home was destroyed and went to stay with an acquaintance in Tripoli, Lebanon. After Lebanese soldiers insulted, mistreated, arrested, tortured, and humiliated him, 351 Ibid., para. 35. Ibid., para. 38. 353 Ibid., para. 53. 354 Ibid., para. 54. 352 66 Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees