Box 6: Temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine

Box 6: Temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine

As Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine entered its third year, the Council of the European Union decided to prolong temporary protection for eligible beneficiaries until March 2026.368 Consequently, all EU+ countries extended the validity of residence permits for 1 more year. 

At the end of 2024, approximately 4.4 million individuals were under temporary protection across EU+ countries. This figure has remained relatively stable since early 2023 and continues to significantly contribute to the overall number of people in Europe with protection needs. Nearly one-half of all beneficiaries of temporary protection were in Germany (1.2 million) and Poland (just below 1 million). Relative to population size, Czechia hosted the highest number of beneficiaries per capita (see Figure 17).
 
 Figure 17. Number of persons under temporary protection per 1 million inhabitants by receiving country, 2024

Countries focused more and more on the integration of displaced Ukrainians. For example, several EU+ countries (e.g. Austria,369 Bulgaria,370 Czechia,371 Estonia,372 Finland,373Germany,374 Spain375 and Sweden376) introduced initiatives to support access to the labour market, language acquisition, community activities and obtaining long-term residence permits. Finland377 and Sweden378 commissioned studies to assess future needs and intentions of displaced Ukrainians in order to inform policy changes. UNHCR continued with the implementation of its Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRP) in the Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova.379 Projects and initiatives continued to support children specifically, while UNICEF highlighted that access to school remained a challenge and approximately one-half of Ukrainian children were not enrolled in national education in hosting countries (although enrolment rates varied greatly across countries and one-half is an estimated average of the situation in different states).380 

Some countries tightened rules and procedures for eligible beneficiaries. Norway limited protection for individuals from Ukrainian regions deemed to be safe, such as Lviv and Zakarpattia, and reduced state-provided accommodation.381 The Netherlands introduced a cost-sharing system requiring beneficiaries to contribute to food and accommodation expenses.382  

For potential returns to Ukraine, Czechia initiated a pilot programme which offers assistance to those who wish to voluntarily return home, for example for family or health reasons.383 Slovakia and Ukraine signed a readmission protocol for individuals no longer eligible for protection,384 while Italy faced criticism from UNHCR over a court decision allowing the repatriation of Ukrainian minors.385
 
Many countries began to encourage beneficiaries of temporary protection to leave reception and further integrate into society by acquiring their own housing. To address reception challenges, Spain adopted community sponsorship practices and decentralised reception to reduce urban strain and accelerate integration.386  

Based on analysis of over 8,200 responses collected between February 2023 and December 2024 from displaced Ukrainians in EU+ countries, the EUAA’s Survey of Arriving Migrants for Displaced People from Ukraine showed that the intention to return to their country had significantly decreased for Ukrainians, from 52% wanting to return in 2023 to 31% in 2024. The main barrier to employment in the host country was no or low proficiency in the local language, followed at a distance by unrecognised qualifications and a lack of childcare. 

Jurisprudence 

In Joined Cases C-244/24 and C-290/24, the CJEU ruled that a Member State may withdraw temporary protection from certain categories of displaced persons without waiting for the temporary protection granted under EU law to end. The decision concerned third-country nationals who held temporary residence permits in Ukraine before February 2022 and to whom optional temporary protection was granted. However, according to the judgment, these individuals cannot be the subject of a return decision while the optional protection remains in force.

A judicial decision in Austria clarified the exclusion grounds in Article 28 of the Temporary Protection Directive and “overturned a return order, holding that despite the applicant's conviction for smuggling of persons, he did not pose a danger to national security, as in this specific case the court did not consider the crime to be a particularly serious crime”.

Further reading 

EUAA Case Law Database 

Jurisprudence on the Application of the Temporary Protection Directive

Who is Who: Temporary Protection for Displaced Persons from Ukraine

The Federal Administrative Court in Switzerland confirmed a negative decision on the request for temporary protection submitted by an Ukrainian national who had been previously granted protection in Poland. 

A Regional Administrative Court in Germany ruled that a spouse of a Ukrainian national from a third country of origin is entitled to temporary protection without prior legal residence.

France's Council of State clarified the emergency condition which is required to suspend the execution of an administrative decision in a case involving a Ukrainian applicant whose request to renew his residence permit based on temporary protection was refused on the grounds that he was a threat to public order. The council recalled that the required emergency condition should, in principle, be regarded as met when the decision was one refusing to renew, revoke or withdraw a residence permit because its execution may harm, in a sufficiently serious and immediate manner, the public interest, the situation of the applicant or the interests of the person it intends to defend.

Sweden’s Migration Board faced criticism from the Parliamentary Ombudsman for the lack of a time limit to freeze the assessment of asylum applications for displaced persons from Ukraine and for the fact that the legal basis was not formulated clearly enough.387