The Hague District Court docket of the Netherlands on Friday called on the Court docket of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to offer a preliminary ruling on questions concerning the extension of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) below Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). TPD entitles the CJEU the jurisdiction to offer preliminary rulings regarding the interpretation of treaties in addition to the validity and interpretation of acts of EU establishments.
In response to the refugee flows ensuing from the battle within the former Yugoslavia on the finish of the final century, the EU Council adopted TPD on July 20, 2001, to determine minimal requirements for granting momentary safety within the occasion of a mass inflow of displaced individuals from third international locations who can’t return to their nation of origin. This emergency mechanism might be activated in distinctive circumstances to stop member states’ asylum methods from turning into overloaded by mass simultaneous asylum purposes. The Netherlands carried out TPD into nationwide legislation on December 16, 2004.
On account of the armed conflicts that broke out in Ukraine in 2022, there was a mass displacement of Ukrainians into the EU. This displacement triggered the momentary safety mechanism on March 4, 2022, and it was mechanically prolonged by one 12 months. To offer stability and prospects for Ukrainian refugees, the Council determined in 2023 to extend the momentary safety for folks fleeing from Russia’s conflict of aggression in opposition to Ukraine from March 4, 2024, to March 4, 2025.
In Friday’s case, a Nigerian man fled to the Netherlands as a third-country national when conflict broke out in Ukraine, and he already belonged to the group to which TPD utilized. Nonetheless, the Netherlands’ secretary of state adopted a former ruling to determine in February that the plaintiff’s lawful residence ended by operation of legislation on March 4, 2024, thereby giving the plaintiff 4 weeks to go away the territory of the EU.
The plaintiff argued that the return choice, based mostly on an incorrect interpretation of TPD, was illegal because the momentary safety of third-country nationals will proceed till March 4, 2025. The plaintiff additionally said that he falls below the extension of momentary safety by means of the 2023 Extension Decree.
The court docket first overruled the secretary of state’s view that the plaintiff’s attraction is inadmissible. As as to if the return choice is untimely, the court docket concluded that the secretary of state was not licensed to make the return choice on February 7, 2024, because of the plaintiff’s lawful residence at the moment. The court docket additionally discovered adequate causes to imagine {that a} appropriate interpretation of EU legislation permits the plaintiff to fall throughout the scope of the Extension Decree and that he’s due to this fact entitled to momentary safety till March 4, 2025.
However, the court docket admitted that the reply to those authorized points was questionable. Subsequently, it requested the CJEU to offer a preliminary ruling on the next three questions:
- Should Article 6 of the Return Directive be interpreted as precluding a return choice from being issued on a date on which an alien remains to be lawfully residing within the territory of a member state?
- Does it matter for the reply to the earlier query whether or not the return choice features a date on which lawful residence ends, that date is within the close to future and, furthermore, the authorized penalties of the return choice solely happen at that later time?
- Ought to Article 1 of the Extension Decree be interpreted as that means that this extension additionally considerations a gaggle of third-country nationals who’ve already been introduced below the scope of the Momentary Safety Directive by a member state by way of the non-compulsory provision of Article 2(3) of the Implementation Decree, even when the member state has subsequently chosen to not provide momentary safety to that group of third-country nationals?
In accordance with the choice, the court docket will reserve any additional choice till the ultimate judgment on the attraction.
