Brussels – It is contrary to European Union law to automatically suspend the examination of asylum applications lodged by persons benefiting from temporary protection, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in a case relating to a Chinese man of Uyghur origin who, in March 2022, arrived in the Netherlands with his Ukrainian wife and their son and applied for asylum there. The Dutch authorities granted him temporary protection – as his wife and son were residents in Ukraine before 24 February 2022, the date on which Moscow launched its attack – and suspended the examination of his asylum application until the expiry of that protection.
In early 2024, the man challenged the Dutch Minister for Asylum and Migration for failing to decide on his asylum application and, in the absence of a response, brought the matter before the Court in The Hague, which ordered the Minister to do so. On appeal, the Dutch Council of State referred the matter to the Court of Justice, asking whether EU law permits the automatic suspension, until the expiry of temporary protection, of the examination of an asylum application lodged by a beneficiary of temporary protection.
In its judgment, the Court points out that the aim of temporary protection is “to provide
immediate and minimum guarantees to displaced persons within the Member States, in particular where there is a
risk that the Member States’ asylum system will be unable to deal with the mass influx of applications for
international protection.” Furthermore, the judges in Luxembourg note that “EU law permits a beneficiary of temporary protection to lodge an application for international
protection and that the rejection of that application does not result in the loss of temporary protection status, as the two
procedures may proceed simultaneously and independently.” Furthermore, “the application of the directives on the handling of applications for international protection in no way
excludes applicants who are already enjoying temporary protection” and the “time limits which those directives lay down therefore apply when examining an application
for international protection, irrespective of whether the applicant already enjoys temporary protection.”
“EU law
nevertheless permits Member States to extend the time limits for examining applications for international protection
where objective reasons justify this, in particular the administrative difficulties that may be caused by the increase in the
number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously”. Lastly, “a generalised and automatic suspension of the examination of applications for international protection
during the period of temporary protection would run counter to the very purpose of that protection, namely
preserving the real opportunity for applicants to obtain international protection following an appropriate examination of
their individual situation, whilst guaranteeing them, with immediate effect, protection on a lesser scale.”
