Mr. A Radi left Lebanon for Hungary, where his application for asylum was denied but like Mr. El Kott, Hungary did not order his return. Mr. Kamel Ismail lived in the Ein El-Hilweh UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon, but left after militants, who wanted to use the roof of his house, threatened him. Mr. Kamel Ismail went to Beirut but still did not feel safe, and subsequently fled to Hungary. He had a certificate from the Palestinian People’s Committee stating that he and his family left the UNRWA camp for safety reasons, along with photographs of his vandalized house. Hungary denied his asylum application, but he and his family members were granted subsidiary protection. All three men appealed the denial of asylum in Hungary. The CJEU was asked to address two questions with regard to Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83: 1. “Do the benefits of the Directive mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?” 2. “Does cessation of the agency’s protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency’s area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency’s protection or assistance or, possibly, an involuntary obstacle caused by legitimate or objective reasons such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?”355 Question 2 The Court answered the second question first, and began by interpreting Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Directive 2004/83 refers. The Court found that, because Article 1D “simply excludes from the scope of the convention persons who ‘are at present receiving’ protection or assistance,” mere absence or voluntary departure from UNRWA’s area of operations is not enough to indicate cessation of such protection or assistance.356 Thus, the Court held that applicants are excluded from refugee status, not only when they are “currently availing themselves of assistance provided by UNRWA[,] but also those […] who in fact availed themselves of such assistance shortly before submitting an application for asylum in a Member State, provided, however, that that assistance has not ceased within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 12(1) (a) of the Directive.”357 The Court then went on to address the conditions under which it may be decided that UNRWA assistance has ceased. The Court found that neither a mere absence from 355 Court of Justice of the European Union, “El Kott,” para. 41. Ibid., para. 49. 357 Ibid., para. 52. 356 The 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 1D 67