The Jilin Judgment (Case C‑249/25): Can Member States Suspend Asylum Procedures During Temporary Protection, and for How Long?

 

Dr Meltem Ineli Ciger, Associate Professor of International Law, Süleyman Demirel University

Photo credit: Maksym Kozlenko, via Wikimedia Commons

On 1 October 2026, the Court of Justice delivered Case C‑249/25 (Jilin), its fourth preliminary ruling on the Council Directive 2001/55/EC (Temporary Protection Directive, ‘TPD’) since the Directive was activated for people displaced from Ukraine. It follows Joined Cases C‑244/24 and C‑290/24 Kaduna (19 December 2024), Case C‑753/23 Krasiliva (27 February 2025) and Case C‑195/25 Framholm (20 November 2025), all discussed on this blog (here, here and here). The question in Jilin is: can a Member State suspend processing of applications for international protection of temporary protection beneficiaries until temporary protection ends? The Court’s answer is no, subject to an exception for cases of ‘objective impossibility’. This post summarises the judgment and then examines what the Court left undefined. It criticises the absence of any explicit reference to international refugee law as well as the requirements of necessity and proportionality in the Court’s assessment.

·         The facts and the questions referred

UB, a Chinese national of Uyghur origin, arrived in the Netherlands on 7 March 2022 with his Ukrainian wife and their child, and applied for asylum on 13 April 2022. During the examination, the Dutch authorities found that, as the family member of a Ukrainian national who had lived in Ukraine before 24 February 2022, he qualified for temporary protection. They therefore stopped examining his asylum claim, on the basis that it could resume once temporary protection expired (para 22). Article 43a of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 allows this: for temporary protection beneficiaries, a decision on an asylum application may be taken at any time up to six months after temporary protection ends (para 19).

UB sent a formal notice of default in January 2024 and then brought an action for failure to act. The District Court of The Hague held that the 21‑month maximum time limit had started to run when the application was lodged, ordered the Minister to decide within eight weeks. On the Minister’s appeal, the Raad van State asked the Court of Justice two questions:

(1)   Does Article 17(2) of the TPD allow Member States to suspend the examination of an application for international protection made by a temporary protection beneficiary for the duration of temporary protection?

(2)   Do the time limits in Article 31 of the Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive, ‘APD’) start or resume running only when temporary protection ends, where the application was made before or during temporary protection?

Article 17(1) of the TPD provides that ‘[p]ersons enjoying temporary protection must be able to lodge an application for asylum at any time’; paragraph 2 adds that ‘[t]he examination of any asylum application not processed before the end of the period of temporary protection shall be completed after the end of that period.’ Article 31 of the APD sets the timetable for the regular procedure. A decision must be taken within six months of the lodging of the application (Article 31(3)). That period may be extended by up to nine months where complex issues of fact or law arise, where a large number of people apply simultaneously, or where the delay is attributable to the applicant; in duly justified circumstances, it may be exceeded by a further three months. Where the situation in the country of origin is uncertain but expected to be temporary, the decision may be postponed, subject to six‑monthly reviews (Article 31(4)). ‘In any event’, the procedure must be concluded within 21 months of the lodging of the international protection application (Article 31(5) of the APD).

Under Article 4 of the TPD, temporary protection should have lasted no more than three years. In practice, the Council has repeatedly prolonged the regime for people displaced from Ukraine, most recently until 4 March 2028 (Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912). In doing so, it has turned an exceptional, time‑bound emergency response into an open‑ended EU policy (see here, here, here and here). On the Dutch reading, an asylum claim lodged in spring 2022 might not have to be decided until late 2028.

·         The judgment

The Court joined the two questions and reformulated them as whether Article 17(2) of the TPD and Article 31 of the APD preclude national authorities from ‘automatically suspending’ the examination of international protection applications lodged by temporary protection beneficiaries, so that the decision time limit does not begin or continue to run until temporary protection has ended (para 34). The Court said yes and noted that such an automatic suspension is unlawful, whilst clarifying that Member States may only temporarily defer individual examinations beyond statutory deadlines in exceptional circumstances where strictly necessary to address an objective impossibility and prevent system collapse (para 64). The judgment provides three reasons.

First, the Court held that Article 17(2) of the TPD only governs what happens to applications not processed before the end of the temporary protection period. It says nothing about whether MS can suspend asylum applications during temporary protection (para 38) (This is also in line with Skordas’ assessment here p. 1213). Temporary protection should not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the 1951 Convention (Article 3(1)); beneficiaries must be able to apply for asylum ‘at any time’ (Article 17(1)); and a person whose asylum application is rejected continues to enjoy temporary protection (Article 19(2)). The Court noted that the legislature, in light of all these provisions, therefore envisaged that asylum procedures would run during temporary protection (paras 39–41). The Court, in line with the AG opinion, reasoned that the Commission’s original proposal included an option to suspend asylum procedures during temporary protection, but Member States could not agree on it and dropped it. No such power can therefore be read into Article 17(2) by implication (paras 42–44, following points 42–45 of Advocate General Campos Sánchez‑Bordona’s Opinion).

Second, the Qualification Directive and the APD apply to all applications for international protection, and nothing excludes applicants who already enjoy temporary protection. Article 31 of the APD time limits therefore apply ‘in principle’ to them as well (paras 45–48). In the Court’s view, Article 31 already takes account of pressure on asylum systems: it allows an extension of up to nine months where large numbers apply simultaneously, a further three months in duly justified circumstances, and postponement for an uncertain situation in the country of origin, all within the 21‑month limit (paras 49–53).

Third, a general and automatic suspension is not necessary to achieve the Directive’s aims (para 54). The TPD is meant to protect asylum systems from being overwhelmed, but it is also meant to ensure that beneficiaries keep ‘a real opportunity to obtain international protection’ once their situation has been examined (para 56). An EU‑wide activation of temporary protection does not mean that every Member State faces more applications than it can handle (para 58). When temporary protection expires, the authorities would face exactly the simultaneous surge of applications that temporary protection was supposed to prevent (para 59).

Having rejected automatic or a blanket suspension, the Court nonetheless recognised an exception. The Court noted it cannot be entirely excluded that a considerable number of applications lodged by temporary protection beneficiaries over a short period will make it ‘objectively impossible’ for a Member State to decide them all within the Article 31 time limits, ‘despite all the reasonably conceivable measures to deal with such an influx’ (para 60). In that case, the State may take measures such as examining applications in phases and setting priorities. This may lead it to defer the examination of some applications temporarily, even if not every application can then be decided within the Article 31 time limits (paras 61–62). National courts must check, in each case, that a missed deadline is not the product of a general and automatic suspension and results only from measures that are necessary to deal with the objective impossibility (para 63).  

·         Analysis

1. The tension of the judgment with the logic of temporary protection

The judgment sits uneasily with how temporary protection is usually understood. Under Article 2(a) TPD, the very purpose of immediate, group‑based protection is to avoid an asylum system being overwhelmed by a mass influx (para 35). In international practice, temporary protection has generally worked by suspending individual refugee status determination.

Jilin confirms that the EU took a different path in 2001. The Member States considered a suspension power and chose not to adopt one (para 42). What they kept instead was Article 19(1), which allows States to provide that a person cannot hold temporary protection and asylum‑seeker status at the same time. The result of the Jilin is that, in EU law, temporary protection can run alongside the asylum procedure. Whether that model can actually deliver on the aim stated in Article 2(a) is a fair question. The Court answers that Article 31 APD already provides the flexibility needed (para 53).

2. An exception that leaves much to explain

The difficulty is that the Court then created an exception that it barely defines. Four questions are left open. What counts as ‘objective impossibility’? The Court requires a ‘considerable number’ of applications ‘over a short period’ and the exhaustion of ‘all the reasonably conceivable measures’, but gives no threshold, no indicators and no burden of proof. Whether a State has hired enough staff, reallocated resources or used the accelerated procedures available to it will be argued case by case before national courts.

How does the exception fit with Article 31 itself? At para 53 the Court tells us that Article 31 already reflects the legislature’s ‘due consideration’ of pressure caused by simultaneous applications, which is why automatic suspension is unnecessary. However, paras 60–62 allow those same calibrated limits to be exceeded.  

Does it reach beyond 21 months? Article 31(5) of the APD requires the procedure to be concluded ‘in any event’ within 21 months. The operative part of the judgment allows deferral ‘including by exceeding that decision‑making period’, without saying whether the 21‑month limit is included. If it is, the Court has created a judge‑made derogation from a limit the legislature described as absolute.  

For how long, and for whom? Deferral must be ‘temporary’, and concern only ‘some’ applications, but the Court sets no outer limit and gives no criteria for prioritisation. Nothing in the judgment prevents a MS from prioritising other caseloads and leaving temporary protection beneficiaries at the back of the queue, which is the outcome Jilin was meant to prevent.

The exception will also apply unevenly. Para 58 makes clear that the test is specific to each State. The relevant variable, however, is not how many temporary protection beneficiaries a Member State hosts but how many asylum applications they lodge in a short period (para 60). Can a MS hosting large numbers of Ukrainians who never apply for asylum not rely on the exception? Can only Germany, Poland or Czechia make use of this possibility? What about other MS hosting a smaller number of temporary protection beneficiaries? These are the questions, in my opinion, left open.

3. What is missing? The international refugee law dimension and the doctrine of derogation

The international refugee law is absent from the judgment. The TPD makes explicit reference to the 1951 Convention. Recital 10 states that temporary protection ‘should be compatible with the Member States’ international obligations as regards refugees’ and ‘must not prejudge the recognition of refugee status pursuant to the Geneva Convention’, and Article 3(1) repeats the point. All Member States are parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol; Article 78(1) of the TFEU requires the EU’s asylum policy to be in accordance with the 1951 Convention, and Article 18 of the Charter guarantees the right to asylum ‘with due respect for’ the Convention.

This matters because temporary protection, conceived as a short emergency response, now routinely becomes protracted. Temporary protection for people displaced from Ukraine will have lasted six years by March 2028. When protection is prolonged, suspending individual status determination can no longer be explained simply as managing an emergency. The 1951 Convention contains no general derogation clause (cf. Durieux and McAdam 2004).  One of the issues which deserved attention, in my opinion, was therefore whether a State Party to the 1951 Convention may, for years, deny people who may well be refugees access to the asylum procedure through which they can claim the Convention rights that build up with lawful and durable stay. However, one should frame such a departure from the Convention as a derogation, as a necessity under general international law or by analogy with human rights derogation clauses; any derogation must be necessary, proportionate and temporary (see, for a fuller analysis, section 2 of this article). International refugee law scholarship has examined this question in depth (cf. Edwards 2012; Durieux 2014). I argued that a genuine mass influx may justify temporarily setting aside individual procedures. It is far less clear that a suspension lasting several years can meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality under international or EU law.

The Court did not engage with any of this. Its analysis stays within the relationship between the TPD and the APD. It never addressed or took into account whether deferring asylum procedures for up to six years is compatible with the 1951 Convention, even though Recital 10 and Article 3(1) of the TPD point straight to that question. It is worth mentioning the Advocate General’s Opinion (paras 60-65), in which he relied on Article 18 and on Article 52(1) of the Charter; he came close to taking these issues into account. Ironically, the outcome of Jilin is broadly what an international law analysis would support: no automatic, open‑ended suspension. But because the Court reached it through EU asylum acquis alone, it left the exception in paras 60–63 without an explicit necessity and proportionality framework that international law would have supplied.

Conclusion

Jilin is quite a vague judgment that leaves much to be discussed, especially given the new exception it introduces to the ban on general suspension of asylum procedures. Although the Court relied on objective impossibility as a ground, it does not make clear when Member States may continue to defer the processing of international protection claims lodged by temporary protection beneficiaries.

Jilin is the CJEU’s fourth preliminary ruling on the TPD, and it repeats a pattern visible in the earlier three. The Court reads the Directive carefully on its own terms and contrasts it with another instrument of the EU acquis but engages little with the international origins of temporary protection, its relationship with the 1951 Convention and leaves unresolved the basic tension between prolonged temporary protection and Member States’ obligations under the 1951 Convention.  

The judgment will matter well beyond UB’s case. Since 12 June 2026, applications lodged after that date are governed by the Asylum Procedures Regulation (Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348), which shortens the extension for large numbers of simultaneous applications to six months, though it does not impact the backstop 21-month time limit. Jilin’s reasoning, that the general asylum time limits apply to temporary protection beneficiaries unless the legislature provides otherwise, is likely to carry over to the new regime. The exception created by the judgment may become even more attractive to States as a result. As the Court itself warned (para 59), Member States that suspended asylum claims face the prospect of a surge of pending decisions when temporary protection ends in March 2028. Jilin requires them, to a certain albeit vague extent, to start deciding on those claims now.

What is wrong with the decision to exclude some Ukrainians from temporary protection?

 

 

Dr. Meltem İneli Ciğer, Associate Professor of International Law, Suleyman Demirel University Faculty of Law, Türkiye; Honorary Fellow, School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool

With comments from Professor Steve Peers, Law School, Royal Holloway University of London

 

Photo credit: President of Ukraine, via Wikimedia Commons

 

 

Nearly every year since I started teaching temporary protection and the Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 (Temporary Protection Directive) at the Odysseus Summer School in 2022, a familiar pattern has emerged. Each year, while updating my PowerPoint slides, the European Commission adopts a proposal to extend the temporary protection regime implemented for Ukrainians fleeing the full-scale Russian invasion. I usually read and incorporate this new development, either the Commission Proposal or the adopted Council Implementing Decision, when I am flying to Brussels. This year is no exception.

 

This year’s Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision (COM(2026) 345 final) marks a departure from previous practice. Aside from proposing to extend temporary protection for an additional year, namely until 4 March 2028, the Commission is proposing, for the first time, to restrict the scope of temporary protection for a specific subset of newcomers. In particular, Article 2 of the Proposal targets newly arriving Ukrainian citizens who are subject to military service obligations under Ukrainian law and who lack explicit, official authorisation from the Ukrainian authorities to leave the country. By proposing this conditionality, the Commission is effectively linking eligibility for temporary protection to the enforcement of a home state’s conscription laws.

 

I have written here and here why I believe these yearly extensions run contrary to the Temporary Protection Directive itself and the risks they bring. This year, however, I will do something different. Since over the years, I have covered the legal problems with yearly extensions, I want to focus specifically on the legal questions brought by the new proposal, namely, those relating to the new restrictions it introduces.

 

Here, I will pose four main legal questions relating to these new restrictions and give my opinion on them. I should mention that the idea to write this post emerged from an exchange on LinkedIn, where I am a somewhat active user, and the comments I received from Steve Peers. I asked Steve to include his answers to these questions, to provide a ‘devil’s advocate’ perspective on some points. Finally, I should mention the sources that can help this analysis. You can watch the Commission’s official press conference video, where some similar questions were posed to the Commission. Additionally, a recent Council of Europe report explicitly warns about the human rights risks of the proposed restriction of scope. Of course, these legal questions will only arise if the proposal is adopted as it is. What are they?

 

Update: The European Commission proposal was adopted by the Council as Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912 on 30 July 2026 and published on 4 August 2026. The Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912 extends temporary protection for displaced Ukrainians (those indicated in Article 2 of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382) (Article 1). While the core initiative to condition temporary protection on compliance with Ukrainian military obligations was included in the final text, the Council introduced several operational additions. First, temporary protection will now only be granted to new arrivals who prove compliance with, or exemption from, their military obligations in Ukraine (Article 2(1) & Recital 16). The decision explicitly retains temporary protection status for individuals who enjoyed temporary protection in a Member State on or before 30 July 2026 and continuously maintain that status. The new restriction applies solely to new applicants from 31 July 2026 onwards (Article 3). Second, the Council clarified how compliance must be proved. Applicants bear the burden of proof, which can be satisfied via an official passport exit stamp, border-crossing records, or digital certification through Ukraine’s Reserv+ application (Recital 18). Third, the Decision explicitly notes that draft evasion and desertion do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for refugee status or subsidiary protection under international standards (Recital 8). Finally, the Council recommends that Member States must reject new residence permit applications under Article 8(1) of the TPD if the applicant already holds a permit in another Member State (Recital 5 and Recital 6).

 

Question 1: Is restricting the scope of temporary protection and excluding newly arriving military-age men from Ukraine discriminatory?

Meltem: Yes, there is a very strong legal argument that this specific restriction is discriminatory under both EU and international human rights frameworks. First, let us look at who is excluded: Article 2 of the proposal explicitly targets newly arriving Ukrainian citizens who are subject to military service obligations under Ukrainian law and who lack official authorisation from the Ukrainian authorities to leave the country. Because martial law and mobilisation frameworks in Ukraine predominantly apply to adult males aged 18 to 60, this measure selectively excludes military-age men from receiving temporary protection in the EU in future.

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights strictly prohibits any form of discrimination based on sex or nationality. By implementing a rule that disproportionately and systematically strips temporary protection eligibility away from mostly adult men, the proposal introduces a gender-discriminatory measure. Treating newly arriving men less favourably than women fleeing the same conflict zone creates direct friction with this principle of equal treatment. This is further reinforced by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits sex-based discrimination when read alongside the protection of fundamental rights under Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR (cf para 30 here). Of course, although these excluded individuals will retain their absolute right to apply for asylum under Article 18 of the Charter, this route opens up further complex legal questions. Most notably, what happens if their international protection claim is rejected?

If a Member State examines an individual’s asylum (ie international protection) claim (which can still be made, according to the temporary protection Directive, even if temporary protection is refused), and concludes that evading conscription under these specific circumstances does not meet the high threshold for refugee status or subsidiary protection, the individual is left in a dangerous legal vacuum. Because they are barred from registering as temporary protection beneficiaries by this new proposal, this may expose them to the immediate risk of a return decision. 

Update: This legal issue persists. I still argue that linking eligibility for temporary protection to a third state’s military conscription rules creates direct friction with the principle of non-discrimination. Whilst Recital 22 notes that “[t]his Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, and Article 2(1) explicitly states that the condition applies “[w]ithout prejudice to Union law and fundamental rights”, it remains unclear how the resulting differential treatment can be justified. The Decision not only creates a distinct divide between newly arriving individuals, who must present proof of compliance with military obligations and those who enjoyed temporary protection in a Member State on or before 30 July 2026 and continuously retain that status, but it also creates a division between individuals subject to military obligations (predominantly adult males aged 18 to 60) and all other newly arriving displaced persons. The Council explicitly relies on Ukraine’s evolving defence and conscription needs (Recitals 13, 16, and 17) as the sole justification for this conditionality. However, can a third country’s military needs legitimately justify gender-disproportionate and selective treatment under EU fundamental rights standards? That for me remains highly doubtful. In a weak attempt to counter the issues concerning gender discrimination, Recital 20 notes that:

“It is possible that Ukrainian nationals who are not subject to conscription have military obligations, irrespective of their age or gender, because they enlisted or otherwise due to responsibilities related to military activities.”

So, the Council frames military compliance as a gender-neutral conditionality, which remains unconvincing. In practice, martial law and statutory conscription in Ukraine predominantly apply to adult males aged 18 to 60. Pointing to a very small minority of women who voluntarily enlist or hold specific military roles does not alter the reality that this new restriction on scope overwhelmingly impacts military-age men.    

Although Recital 8 recalls that temporary protection does not prejudice the right to apply for international protection, it explicitly adds that “in accordance with international standards, desertion and draft evasion are not considered, by themselves, to be grounds for international protection”. Newly arriving individuals with military obligations who apply for international protection but lack distinct personal circumstances justifying refugee status or subsidiary protection risk having their claims rejected and being issued a return decision. Bear in mind, the recognition rate for Ukrainians (all Ukrainians irrespective of military obligations) was around 45% in May 2026, according to the EUAA. As Steve pointed out, Member States remain bound to assess individual non-refoulement risks and ongoing conflicts and human rights conditions in Ukraine before executing any return decision. However, Member States’ approaches to evaluating such asylum claims and conducting return assessments are likely to diverge significantly in practice.

Steve: A devil’s advocate view: the Charter also provides for possible restrictions of Charter rights in its Article 52, which allows limitations on rights to support ‘objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others’. The argument here is that the EU is seeking to support the Ukrainian defence effort, which could be described either as an objective of general interest, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The measure is arguably proportionate as long as the return of each Ukrainian citizen in the individual case would not amount to non-refoulement (and only provided that any application for international protection they have made has failed on the merits; the concerns raised about human rights and conscription in Ukraine can obviously be argued in this context). Unlike the Commission’s proposal, the Council decision explicitly confirms the possibility of applying for international protection instead.

One point about the evidence now necessary to show that temporary protection applicants comply with the new rules: the new extension decision refers to Ukrainian controls on exit (‘when leaving’ and ‘a legal departure’); it does not suggest that Member States’ authorities should be filtering Ukrainians as temporary protection applicants at the EU’s external borders.

 

Question 2: Does the Temporary Protection Directive give the Council the power to restrict its scope after four years of its activation?

 

Meltem: No, it does not. Neither Article 5 nor any other provision in the temporary protection Directive (TPD) grants any power to the Council to retroactively alter, narrow, or restrict the objective scope of who qualifies for that protection via a yearly implementing decision. Article 5 is invoked by the Commission in the Proposal to justify restricting the scope of the TPD’s application. However, if you look closely at the TPD, you will see Article 5 is intended to designate the specific categories of persons eligible for temporary protection at the very beginning, when there is a mass influx. It does not give the Council the power to dynamically designate or exclude different groups in subsequent yearly extensions. In my opinion, attempting to introduce new restrictions now is completely contrary to the TPD provisions. These new restrictions essentially introduce new exclusion grounds for temporary protection status. When looking at Article 28 of the Directive, which explicitly sets out the allowed exclusion grounds, it is clear that the new restrictions are also not permitted as additional exclusion grounds.

Update: This statutory concern remains unresolved in the adopted text. In adopting Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912, the Council explicitly relies on Articles 4(2) and 5(3), point (a) of the TPD as its legal basis. What I have previously argued still applies.

Steve: Again, a devil’s advocate might argue the opposite here – that this is not an issue of a new exclusion from temporary protection (which would definitely need an amendment to the parent Directive to be created), but rather a narrowing of those included by temporary protection. The scope of people included by the current iteration of temporary protection is defined not by the parent Directive, but by the 2022 decision to trigger it in response to the main Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has been amended (to extend its duration) several times already. The parent Directive is silent on the issue of whether the scope of who is covered by temporary protection can be altered (either to narrow it or to widen it) after temporary protection is triggered, but perhaps the earlier CJEU judgment in Kaduna – which accepted that Member States could narrow the scope of any ‘optional’ temporary protection they initially offered on top of the EU minimum if they chose – applies by analogy to EU-wide temporary protection, ie the EU can narrow the scope of temporary protection it initially offered, as long as the parent Directive’s test for terminating temporary protection is met for the specific group of people being removed from the scope of that protection as regards future applications. That test is:

...the situation in the country of origin is such as to permit the safe and durable return of those granted temporary protection with due respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and Member States' obligations regarding non-refoulement.

It might, of course, be argued that this test is not met for men of military age. In any event, the parent Directive’s guarantee that they can apply for international protection at any time, and the Return Directive’s guarantee that they cannot be refouled, have to be satisfied too, on an individual basis.

It might also be argued that since the parent Directive only sets minimum standards, it must remain open to Member States to grant temporary protection to military age men as an option, as long as they are fleeing Ukraine for the same reason as others seeking temporary protection (see the Kaduna judgment by analogy, as regards those who left Ukraine shortly before the main Russian invasion). This might be relevant in particular to Hungary, which has reportedly objected to this aspect of the proposal.

 

 

Question 3: What will happen to the family members of those who fall within the scope of temporary protection in line with Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022?  

 

Meltem: This raises a very messy legal question regarding family unity. Under the initial Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, family members of Ukrainian nationals, as well as those of third-country nationals holding refugee or equivalent protection status in Ukraine prior to the full-scale invasion, are explicitly included as a core category entitled to temporary protection alongside the principal applicant.  Article 15 of the Temporary Protection Directive sets out mandatory duties for Member States to reunite family members who were separated due to the circumstances of the mass influx. (cf. Milios’s contribution here) The new proposal creates a direct clash between Article 15 of the TPD and the proposed exclusion grounds. If a newly arriving, military-age man leaves Ukraine to join family members who have held temporary protection in the EU since 2022, his exclusion would directly undermine the right to family life and the obligations in the 2022 Decision and the Directive. Conversely, admitting him while excluding single men in identical circumstances introduces severe issues of differential treatment and discrimination.

Update: This tension between family unity obligations and the new eligibility conditionality remains unaddressed in the adopted text. Recital 15 of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912 acknowledges that specific categories of eligible persons are determined “in compliance with Article 15 of [the TPD], where applicable”. Yet, this fleeting reference, in my opinion, does not give a clear answer to the question we posed above.

Steve: here I think the devil’s advocate has no good argument to make. Family members of those with temporary protection are entitled to temporary protection, according to the 2022 Decision, and family reunion, according to Article 15 of the parent Directive, unless the criteria for exclusion set out in that Directive (ie security risks and serious crimes, defined similarly to the exclusion clauses in the Refugee Convention) apply.

 

The wording of the new Council Decision, in my reading, excludes family members who have not complied with their military obligations from temporary protection under the 2022 Decision, but leaves open the prospect of them being eligible for family reunion, on the basis of the parent Directive. Although the final Council decision makes only an oblique reference to family reunion under the Directive, this is better than the failure to refer to it at all in the original proposal, and those who seek to rely on this possibility now have a specific provision in the text to point to. This is most likely to be relevant to men whose wives or partners have temporary protection in the EU (for partners, this is subject to the criteria of having a ‘stable relationship’, and that the host Member State treats partners in a ‘comparable’ way to married couples). As Jane Austen might have said, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man seeking protection from a Russian platoon, must be in want of a wife.”

 

Question 4: Is Recital 5 of the Proposal a mistake or a new interpretation of the Krasiliva case (C-753/23) by the Commission?

 

In the Krasiliva case (C-753/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that displaced persons from Ukraine have a right to choose the Member State where they want to apply for temporary protection. However, the Court ruled that national authorities cannot declare a newcomer’s temporary protection registration and resident permit request inadmissible simply because they already applied for a permit in another Member State but have not received it. Interestingly, the Court left open the question whether a person who has received temporary protection status and a resident permit attached to this status in one Member State can apply and be granted temporary protection in another MS.

 

Recital 5 of the Commission Proposal notes “Given that a person can benefit from the rights attached to temporary protection in only one Member State at a time, to ensure that this is the case, and to avoid multiple registrations for temporary protection, Member States should reject residence permit requests made on the basis of Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55/EC when it is apparent that the person concerned has already obtained a residence permit on that basis in another Member State and therefore is enjoying the rights attached to temporary protection therein, including social assistance. This would be coherent with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-753/23 and in particular paragraph 30 thereof.”

 

Steve: To my mind, the Krasiliva judgment is ambiguous. The key para in the judgment says that it is “open to the authorities of a Member State to verify, in the course of examining” a temporary protection application, “whether those persons have already obtained a residence permit in another Member State”. This is not explicitly definitive either way. The important point here is the addition of the words in the Commission proposal: “and therefore is enjoying the rights attached to temporary protection therein, including social assistance”, which do not appear in the previous Council decision extending temporary protection. This suggests that if another Member State has granted temporary protection but has not done so correctly, ie does not extend the substantive rights set out in the parent Directive to beneficiaries in practice, another Member State is obliged to consider a temporary protection application from those persons. This would be consistent with CJEU case law on international protection (Ibrahim).

 

Meltem: I believe the Commission adopts a very restrictive reading of the Judgment by noting Member States should reject residence permit requests made on the basis of Article 8(1) of the Directive when it is apparent that the person concerned has already obtained a residence permit in another MS. However, as Steve pointed out, what happens if a person holds TP status in a Member State but is not enjoying the rights attached to temporary protection therein, including social assistance? Then can they apply for temporary protection in another Member State? I think the recital somehow supports this reading. Is this on purpose or a mistake we do not know.

 

Update: Whether the Commission’s original phrasing in draft Recital 5 was a deliberate attempt to safeguard Chapter III rights or merely a drafting oversight will remain unknown. If intentional, the Commission sought to ensure that holding a residence permit on paper in a first Member State would not bar an applicant from seeking protection elsewhere if that initial state failed to provide effective access to core rights, such as housing or social assistance. What is clear, however, is the Council’s intent in the final text. By deleting the “substantive enjoyment” qualification from Recital 5 and adding Recital 6, the Council rejected this flexible reading. Instead, it endorsed a very restrictive interpretation of Krasiliva (Case C-753/23) and wanted no multiple registrations, irrespective of the standard of protection actually delivered on the ground in the first Member State registered.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, although the Commission's proposal to restrict the scope of temporary protection to help Ukrainian allies is understandable from a policy point of view, it raises many serious legal problems. For the reasons I have outlined, ranging from discrimination and ultra vires overreach to the risk of creating a dangerous legal gap for those whose asylum claims might be rejected, I argue that the Commission proposal should not be adopted as it is.

 

Meltem: While Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1912 formally extends temporary protection until 4 March 2028, the Council did little to alter the substance of the Commission proposal or resolve the legal issues we raised. Apart from technical adjustments, most notably deleting the ‘substantive enjoyment’ clause from Recital 5 to enforce a bar on multiple registrations, the Council left the discriminatory elements intact while pushing the statutory boundaries of Articles 4 and 5 of the TPD. Moreover, the text left the friction with family-unity obligations under Article 15 TPD largely unaddressed.  

 

Steve: the final decision usefully refers both to the family reunion point and the prospects of those with military obligations applying for international protection instead. In the absence of these provisions, Member States might have tried to claim that family reunion or international protection claims by those with military obligations are not possible, but the explicit references in the preamble mean that such point-blank rejections by national authorities are not tenable. On the other hand, the Council’s final version of the Decision rejects the Commission’s apparent attempt to qualify the position on situations where a temporary protection applicant already has temporary protection in another Member State, and this is a questionable interpretation of the case law. In the face of reductions in support for temporary protection beneficiaries in some Member States, it is not impossible to imagine where severe living conditions induce a beneficiary to apply for temporary protection in another Member State. As with the case law on international protection (Ibrahim), a Charter right to do so should be recognised, at the very least.    

Flight from Ukraine: A Proposal for Transition out of the EU Temporary Protection Scheme

 

 

Professor Kees Groenendijk, Radboud University, Emeritus and Professor Elspeth Guild, University of Liverpool

 

Photo credit: Dietmar Rabich / Wikimedia Commons / “Münster, Stadtweinhaus, Beflaggung Ukraine und EU -- 2022 -- 0219” / CC BY-SA 4.0

 

On 3 March 2022 the EU legislator, for the first time, opened a temporary protection scheme under Directive 2001/55 for those fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While the Directive limits the duration of any scheme to three years maximum, the EU legislator has already extended the scheme to five years and is currently reflecting on where to go next. The validity of the extra extension has already been considered by Peers, Ineli-Ciger and others and for the moment the Court of Justice has yet to be asked. 

In the meantime, the war in Ukraine continues. Some have assessed that at the current rate of progress, it would take Russia centuries and tens of millions of deaths to succeed in occupying Ukraine. It seems that Ukrainian attacks in Russia are causing havoc and the Ukrainian military is holding up and diversifying its strategy. There is little or no news about any peace negotiations. Last year Eurostat advised that 4.31 million non-EU citizens who fled Ukraine as a consequence of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine had a temporary protection status in the EU. The number is unlikely to have diminished since then. Many of these people arrived in the EU soon after the opening of the scheme and will soon have been resident in the EU for five years.

In this blog, we examine the pressing need for a common EU approach to providing a durable status to those who are in the EU and address some of the issues which are being expressed by some Member States and EU institutions. In 2023, we examined the nature of the temporary protection scheme and the challenges for the Member States. In our contribution to Govaere and Graben The Impact of War (in Ukraine) on the EU Hart, 2025) we examined the options available to the EU legislator and Member States regarding the long term status of beneficiaries of the Temporary Protection scheme. At that time we strongly recommended that there would need to be an EU wide scheme to bring these persons into a stable and permanent status. We proposed a number of options, from the most liberal – a modified free movement of persons regime with Ukraine in the context of the EU-Ukraine enlargement procedures to the most limited a special scheme limited to those who are already reaching the end of the scheme’s life span. 

What we did not expect at the time of writing was that the EU legislator would simply continue to extend the scheme notwithstanding the express limit in the directive to three years. But this has been the policy option for the moment. 

In September 2025, a Council Recommendation proposed that there be a transition into national or EU legal statuses for those currently benefitting from temporary protection. Few, however, have managed to do so. problem is the numbers. In 2024, according to Eurostat  the Member States managed to issue 3.5 million first residence permits to non-EU citizens. Adding 4.31 million applications to change status or be issued a new permit in a different status would undoubtedly cause consternation to the officials charged with the task. Further, as we argued before, unless there is a common EU status for temporary protection beneficiaries any differences in treatment could result in them moving among the Member States in search of greater stability.

In one of the most important destination states for temporary protection beneficiaries the following information is available: according to the Central Alien’s Registration a total of 1,346,200 displaced persons from Ukraine were living in Germany on 30 April 2026, more than 96% having Ukrainian nationality. 88% received a residence permit for temporary protection under Directive 2001/5 and §24 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz, 7% applied for that residence permit but their applications are still pending, and 2% applied for international protection. The remaining 3% did not apply for either temporary or international protection. According to the same source, 467,100 displaced persons from Ukraine who came to Germany between February 2022 and 31 December 2025, were no longer living in Germany at that date (or have otherwise disappeared from the register). Thus, a quarter of the displaced persons who came to Germany after the Russian war of aggression no longer live in that member state. Apparently, few displaced persons received a national or an EU-residence permit instead or in addition to their temporary protection status.

In light of these pressing issues and the difficulty which the EU legislator is having with the question, we are now revisiting the subject with a view to providing a clear action plan to provide these people with security while assuaging concerns of some Member States.

When the EU legislator first addressed the issue of security of residence for third country nationals resident in the EU it adopted a directive in 2003. Having commissioned research on the normal period of residence Member States require for third country nationals to spend in a state before enjoying security of residence, the EU legislator alighted on the period of five years as the most appropriate to ensure genuine integration and fair treatment to resident third country nationals. The same time period should be applicable also to temporary protection beneficiaries on the basis of the same arguments.

In light of the difficulties of the EU legislator to adapt any existing measure to resolve the pressing need to provide certainty and security of residence of Ukraine temporary protection beneficiaries we now propose the following course of action.

The Proposal and Adoption of a new EU legal instrument

The Commission should propose a new legal instrument based on Article 79(2)(a) and (b) TFEU consisting of the following five essential elements:

1. Beneficiaries of temporary protection from Ukraine who have resided legally in an EU Member State for five years retain the rights they acquired under Directive 2001/55/EC or under national law in that Member State. The transition should be fully automatic.

2. Member States may not introduce new restrictions on the right of residence, the access to (self-)employment, and access to general and vocational education applicable to the persons referred to in point 1.

3. Member States may withdraw a right of residence acquired under point 1 only on the exclusion grounds listed in Article 28 of Directive 2001/55/EC, the grounds relating to public policy, public security or public health listed in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC, or in case the person has not been present in the territory of the European Union for a period of 12 consecutive months (cfr. Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2003/109/EC).

After five years of lawful residence (and employment during part of those five years) termination of residence on economic grounds is no longer permitted. [cfr. for third-country nationals with an EU long-term residence permit, according to Article 12(2) of Directive 2003/109/EC, and for Union citizens, according to Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC.]

4. In case of the loss of the right of residence pursuant to point 3, the rights under Directive 2001/55/EC are reacquired. In case the temporary protection for beneficiaries from Ukraine has come to an end,  the national law of the Member State shall apply to the third country nationals mentioned in the first sentence.

5. Member States have the right to adopt or maintain more favorable provisions.

Three Main Aims

Establishing an almost uniform transitional residence status at EU level, as long as no other more stable and durable residence status is acquired under EU or national law, would serve three aims: (1) granting secure residence rights would on the one hand promote the integration of those wanting to remain in their Member State of residence and (2) on the other hand support the voluntary return of those considering return to Ukraine by explicitly allowing for absence from the EU up to twelve months. (3) The third aim is the reduction of administrative burden through the quasi-automatic acquisition of durable  residence rights after five years of temporary protection.

The majority of temporary protection beneficiaries from Ukraine entered their host Member States in 2022. By 2027, these individuals will have resided legally in that Member State for five years on the basis of Directive 2001/55/EC. From mid-2027, the abovementioned transitional EU residence status should will be acquired gradually and automatically on the basis of EU law without an application or a decision by an administrative authority. The likelihood of large numbers of asylum procedures and the associated burden on asylum authorities and, potentially, the courts will be reduced, whilst the continued protection needs remain guaranteed at the level provided in Directive 2001/55/EC. The second sentence of Article 8(1) of that directive, concerning documents to be issued, will continue to apply, pursuant to point 1. 

Further Explanation

The proposed regulation utilizes elements of the residence status of third-country nationals with an EU long-term residence permit under Directive 2003/109/EC and the status of EU citizens under Directive 2004/38/EC. The proposed scheme also serves Ukraine's interests regarding the voluntary return of Ukrainian citizens and represents a preferential treatment of Ukrainian citizens under EU migration law, compatible with Ukraine’s status of candidate member state, without requiring Ukraine's membership in the European Union or establishing EU citizenship for Ukrainian citizens. The scheme does not provide for more intra-EU mobility with this durable residence right than under the Temporary Protection Directive before acquisition of the EU-long term residents’ permit or Union citizenship.

The scheme clarifies that, after five years of lawful residence in a Member State, deportation to Ukraine is only possible in exceptional individual cases and that the war refugees and their families are part of Europe. Individual review by immigration authorities only in cases of loss of the durable residence right. Reunification with family members from Ukraine or family members living in other Member States would be governed by Article 15 of Directive 2001/55/EC, the Family Reunification Directive 2003/86/EC, or, in case those the relevant provisions of those two instruments are not applicable, by national law. Pursuant to point 1 of the proposed new instrument, the right to apply for asylum, confirmed in Article 17 TPD will continue to apply to persons with the new EU status. This transitional scheme would also apply to third-country nationals without Ukraine’s citizenship who acquired temporary protection under Directive 2001/55/EC.

At present, war refugees granted temporary protection under Directive 2001/55/EC are excluded from the personal scope of the EU Long-Term Residence Directive 2003/109/EC, the Blue Card Directive 2021/1883/EU, the Single Permit Directive 2024/1233/EU, and the Students and Researchers Directive 2016/801/EU. The proposed new EU-status is not mentioned in Articles 2 or 3 of these four directives. The exclusion clause in those four directives no longer obstructs access to employment and social inclusion in Member States on the basis of those directives. The previous residence on the basis of Directive 2001/55 counts as lawful residence for the application of those four directives.

One final remark

As long as the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine continues, Directive 2001/55/EC should be extended for (a) new war refugees from Ukraine, and (b) war refugees from Ukraine who have resided in a Member State for less than five years and are, hence not yet covered by the transitional scheme.