ATC, what are you expecting?
 

(In advance, I know very similar questions have been posted - but can't find the precise example as below - most appear related to STAR clearance)

In an ICAO member country, if given a "When ready, descend to XXX, be level by YYYYY" and then subsequently instructed "Descend to ZZZ": If the second level assignment is lower then the first, are you expected to comply with the previous "Be level by" restriction?

This is NOT in regards to a descend via STAR clearance.

---
Example:

*ATC*: KLM501 Descend FL200, be level by EPSIL
*KLM501*: (Readback)
*ATC*: KLM501 Continue Descent FL120

So, does KLM501 have to comply the with the previous EPSIL/FL200 restriction ?

And ... have you got a reference? Doc 4444 seems not to cover it.

I'm not ATC and don't have a reference but I discussed something similar with a controller before and the general answer was that they would probably expect you to still meet the restriction but technically they should repeat the restriction with the new clearance as otherwise it doesn't apply anymore.

:mad:

That does not work with me

In The U.K., every clearance cancels a previous clearance, so unless the controller states otherwise, any conditions attached to the previous clearance are also cancelled.
If in doubt, please check with ATC.

As a controller I would definitely restate the restriction by EPSIL, if it's still needed. The "continue descent FL120" clearance could be ambiguous otherwise.

By all means, when in doubt please ask!

As Zooker states, any clearance cancels the previous. If I still wanted you to meet the "level by" I would restate it.

Good old rule learnt 50 years ago and still valid : "never assume, check or confirm ".
Pilot : If in doubt pilot ask confirmation if restriction is still valid.
Controller: when re-clearing and restriction still apply, state it again .
Did that ( or at least tried to ;)) for the 35 years I did ATC , and taught that to my trainees.Never had a problem as a result.
Another good old rule : "Common sense is better than Doc4444."