Box 4. Temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine

Box 4. Temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine

In response to Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, the Council of the European Union434 extended temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine until March 2027. This meant that the validity of residence permits was prolonged for eligible beneficiaries across all EU+ countries and their legal rights and obligations were continued. At the same time, the European Commission proposed a Council Recommendation435 to prepare for a coordinated transition, once conditions in Ukraine allow for a gradual phasing out of temporary protection.

With 669,000 registrations in 2025, slightly fewer Ukrainians were granted protection in EU+ countries than in 2024.436 Nonetheless, additional resources were required across Europe as approximately 4.5 million individuals in total were under temporary protection by the end of the year.437 Relative to population size, Czechia, Poland and Slovakia hosted the most displaced Ukrainians per capita (see Figure 13).

Turning to international protection, Ukrainians lodged slightly fewer applications in 2025, with 25,000 in total. There was great variation in granting protection by national authorities, ranging from an over 90% recognition rate in Estonia and France, to 3% in Germany (see Figure 14). Overall, the EU+ recognition rate for Ukrainian applicants (70%), dropped to the lowest since the beginning of the war. This shift was primarily driven by a change in Polish decision-making, leading to a more rigorous individual assessment of protection needs which takes into account the safety situation in Ukraine.436 Poland issued one-fifth of all decisions to Ukrainian applicants, with nearly all first instance decisions being negative since May 2025, thus impacting the overall EU+ recognition rate.

In several countries (for example Germany), the share of beneficiaries of temporary protection who were accommodated in reception facilities remained significant. This had a notable impact on reception systems overall. 

Several EU + countries continued in 2025 to shift policies towards integration and targeted labour market reforms. “Unity Hubs” in Spain437 and Czechia438 provided assistance with employment, language courses, counselling for beneficiaries and, in some cases, support for voluntary returns. A Unity Hub was set up in Germany to provide counselling for beneficiaries on options to return to Ukraine or integrate in Germany, and to support Ukrainian community building. Operations start in April 2026.439 Switzerland440 replaced work permit requirements for S-status holders from Ukraine with a new notification system, enabling inter-cantonal employment mobility. Bulgaria441 adopted a national programme for humanitarian support and integration focusing on access to employment, education and social support.

Figure 14. First instance decisions issued to Ukrainians by top EU+ country, 2025 compared to 2024 and recognition rate for 2025

Several countries introduced initiatives to transition beneficiaries of temporary protection to alternative national residence permits. Czechia442 established a special long-term residence permit for financially self-sufficient Ukrainian beneficiaries after 2 years of stay. Similarly, Poland443 introduced a simplified procedure for Ukrainian citizens and their family members to change their status into a temporary national residence permit. Ireland444 and Slovenia445 revised their legal frameworks to enable a clearer transition towards national permits and better define rights and obligations of applicants and beneficiaries of temporary protection.

In parallel, countries such as Finland,446 the Netherlands447 and Spain began narrowing eligibility criteria for granting or renewing temporary protection to third-country nationals previously residing in Ukraine. Norway proposed procedural reforms to streamline the phase-out from temporary collective protection.448 Switzerland449 opted for regional distinction within Ukraine, limiting access to protection status S for applicants from areas deemed to be safe, which triggered concerns by UNHCR450 and the Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR).451

Italy452 and Slovakia procured additional reception places for beneficiaries of temporary protection, with Slovakia reducing the entitlement to a place in collective accommodation and the accommodation allowance to 60 days, except for vulnerable applicants.453 Similarly, in late 2025, Poland limited collective accommodation to only vulnerable beneficiaries and restricted certain benefits and healthcare services,454 while the Netherlands increased beneficiaries’ personal contributions to reception costs and closed a reception centre in Utrecht.455 Some housing schemes which enable beneficiaries of temporary protection to access accommodation outside the reception system were extended, including the “Together for Independence” project in Poland456 and the “Lend a hand” project in Spain.457 Bulgaria458 adopted measures to improve support for vulnerable beneficiaries, Luxembourg maintained projects supporting labour market integration, and Switzerland adopted measures on administrative requirements to access the job market.459

Jurisprudential developments at both the national and EU levels further clarified the interplay between temporary protection and international protection procedures. In November 2025, in response to questions by Sweden’s Administrative Courts, the CJEU ruled that a Member State may not reject as inadmissible an application for international protection on the sole ground that the applicant is under temporary protection. Member States must examine the application on merits to assess whether the applicant qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection. The CJEU further noted that national courts must disapply national law that does not effectively implement the TPD, if it is not in conformity with the recast APD (Article 33) and the recast QD (Article 18), so that individuals would still benefit from rights provided under EU law.

In the context of multiple applications submitted in different Member States, the CJEU clarified in A.N. [Krasiliva] v Ministerstvo vnitra (27 February 2025) that national authorities cannot reject an application for temporary protection submitted by a person who has applied for the status in another Member State but has not yet received it. The court also interpreted the TPD (Article 8) as providing an appeal against inadmissible decisions adopted on applications for a residence permit under temporary protection. Subsequently, the Czech Supreme Administrative Court ruled that beneficiaries of temporary protection cannot be denied protection solely because they hold a status in another Member State and national prohibitions on appealing inadmissible decisions violate both the TPD and the EU Charter (Article 47). In contrast, Switzerland’s Federal Administrative Court underlined the subsidiarity principle, denying temporary protection to applicants already registered in Poland.

There are three cases pending before the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interplay with asylum, access to social benefits and inaction of the administrative authority on granting a temporary residence and work permit during the validity of temporary protection. In the Netherlands, the Council of State referred questions on the suspension of asylum applications during temporary protection and the adherence to time limits under the recast APD, highlighting the need for legal clarity. The Administrative Court of Varna in Bulgaria questioned if national legislation was compatible with the TPD (Articles 13 and 14) when social assistance authorities repeatedly refused to grant a one-time benefit to Ukrainian children enrolled in school. The Voivodship Administrative Court of Wrocław sought guidance on the possibility for an administrative authority to suspend the processing of a request for a temporary residence and a work permit by a Ukrainian national who was authorised to reside in Poland based on temporary protection. 

In Belgium, the Council of State confirmed that temporary protection does not prevent the extradition of a Ukrainian national, finding no violation of the ECHR and no evidence to support the claim that the applicant will be sent back to the war front.