Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:911
Date: 2024-10-22
Language of the case: Dutch
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary C-244/24 – 1 
Case C-244/24 [Kaduna] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
4 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
29 March 2024 
Appellant: 
P 
Respondent: 
Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against a return decision concerning a Nigerian national with a temporary 
residence permit in Ukraine who fled to the Netherlands when war broke out in 
Ukraine.  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive) and 
Decisions 2022/382 and 2023/2409 implementing Directive 2001/55/EC 
(Temporary Protection Directive) to clarify whether the staatssecretaris van 
Justitie en Veiligheid (State Secretary for Justice and Security; ‘the State 
Secretary’) could take a return decision against a foreign national as early 
as 7 February 2024 and whether the foreign national’s temporary protection was 
terminated on 4 March 2024. 
 
i This is a fictitious name, which does not correspond to the actual name of any party to these proceedings. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-244/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is Article 6 of the Return Directive to be interpreted as precluding the 
issuing of a return decision on a date when a foreign national is still lawfully 
resident on the territory of a Member State? 
2. Does it make any difference to the answer to the foregoing question if the 
return decision contains a date on which the lawful residence ends, where that date 
is in the near future and, moreover, where the legal consequences of the return 
decision do not take effect until that later date? 
3. Is Article 1 of the Extension Decision to be interpreted as meaning that this 
extension also covers a group of third-country nationals who have already been 
brought within the scope of the Temporary Protection Directive by a Member 
State via the optional provision of Article 2(3) of the Implementing Decision, 
even though the Member State has chosen at a later point in time to no longer 
grant temporary protection to that group of third-country nationals? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Article 2, 4 and 77. 
Protocol 25 to the TFEU on the Exercise of Shared Competence. 
Declaration 18 in relation to the delimitation of competences of the Declarations 
concerning provisions of the Treaties of 13 December 2007, annexed to the Final 
Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon.  
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving 
temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on 
measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such 
persons and bearing the consequences thereof (Temporary Protection Directive): 
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7. 
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for 
returning illegally staying third-country nationals (Return Directive): Articles 2 
and 6. 
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 establishing the 
existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning 
of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing 
temporary protection (hereafter also: ‘the Implementing Decision’): recitals 1, 2, 7 
and 10 and Articles 1 and 2. 
KADUNA 
 
3 
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2409 of 19 October 2023 extending 
temporary protection as introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 
(hereafter also: ‘the Extension Decision’): recital 7 and Article 1. 
Court of Justice case-law relied on 
Judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, 283/81, EU:C:1982:335. 
Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2008, Kozlowski, C-66/08, not 
published, EU:C:2008:116. 
Judgment of 30 May 2013, Arslan, C-534/11, EU:C:2013:343. 
Judgment of 10 September 2013, G. and R., C-383/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:553. 
Judgment of 11 December 2014, Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2032. 
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in Germany v Council, C-600/14, 
EU:C:2017:296. 
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Opinion Procedure 2/15 (Free Trade 
Agreement with Singapore), EU:C:2016:992. 
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Gnandi, C-181/16, EU:C:2018:90. 
Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2017, Jafari, C-646/16, 
unpublished, EU:C:2017:138. 
Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2017, Mengesteab, C-670/16, 
unpublished, EU:C:2017:120. 
Judgment of 19 June 2018, Gnandi, C-181/16, EU:C:2018:465.  
Judgment of 14 January 2021, TQ (Return of an unaccompanied 
minor), C-441/19, EU:C:2021:9. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on Foreign Nationals 2000; ‘the Vw’): Articles 8 
and 62a. 
Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Decision on Foreign Nationals 2000): Article 3.1a. 
Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000 (Regulations on Foreign Nationals 2000; ‘the 
VV’): Article 3.9a. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-244/24 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant was born in 1994 and is a Nigerian national. He had a temporary 
residence permit in Ukraine, valid until 31 January 2023. After Russia’s invasion 
of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he fled to the Netherlands.  
2 Following the invasion, the Council stipulated in Article 2 of Implementing 
Decision 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 implementing Directive 2001/55/EC that 
Ukrainian nationals, stateless persons and nationals of countries other than 
Ukraine, who benefited from international protection or equivalent national 
protection in Ukraine before 24 February 2022, and stateless persons and nationals 
of third countries other than Ukraine with a valid permanent residence permit who 
are unable to return to their country of origin in safe and durable conditions, 
would be granted temporary protection in accordance with the Directive. The 
appellant does not fall within the categories of persons to be granted temporary 
protection under the Implementing Decision.  
3 However, when transposing the Directive into Netherlands law, the Netherlands 
made use of the possibility offered by Article 7 of the Directive and Article 2(3) 
of the Implementing Decision to also apply the Implementing Decision to other 
persons, including stateless persons and nationals of third countries other than 
Ukraine, who were residing legally in Ukraine before 24 February 2022 and who 
cannot return to their country or region of origin in safe and durable conditions 
(safe country of origin test). The State Secretary explained in a letter to the 
Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, House of Representatives) 
dated 30 March 2022, that he intended to apply the Directive generously and use 
this opportunity to extend temporary protection to third-country nationals who 
held a temporary residence permit in Ukraine on 23 February 2022 (also: ‘the 
optional group’) and to waive the safe country of origin test for that group.  
4 In a subsequent letter to the Tweede Kamer dated 18 July 2022, the State 
Secretary announced that the further granting of temporary protection to the 
optional group would be terminated with effect from 19 July 2022. For members 
of that group who were already enjoying temporary protection at that time, 
temporary protection would be terminated on 4 March 2023. By letter to the 
Tweede Kamer dated 10 February 2023, the State Secretary extended the 
temporary protection for the optional group until 4 September 2023. The optional 
group was therefore limited to stateless persons or third-country nationals who 
had a valid temporary residence permit in Ukraine on 23 February 2022 and had 
registered in the Netherlands Personal Records Database before 19 July 2022. 
5 On 17 August 2022, the State Secretary amended the VV to include a new 
provision, Article 3.9a. By this amendment, the State Secretary intended to 
incorporate the content of the letters to the Tweede Kamer referred to in 
paragraph 4 into these regulations.  
KADUNA 
 
5 
6 The appellant registered in the Personal Records Database on 1 June 2022 and is 
therefore covered by the protection of the Temporary Protection Directive. In 
accordance with the letter to the Tweede Kamer of 30 March 2022, the State 
Secretary did not assess whether the appellant could safely and permanently return 
to Nigeria.  
7 On 24 Augustus 2023 the State Secretary decided to terminate the appellant’s 
temporary protection under the Temporary Protection Directive with effect 
from 4 September 2023.  
8 By Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2409 of 19 October 2023, the Council 
extended protection for the displaced persons concerned by a year 
to 4 March 2025. 
9 The State Secretary withdrew his decision of 24 August 2023 after the Afdeling 
bestuursrechtspraak (Administrative Jurisdiction Division) of the Raad van State 
(Council of State) (‘the Afdeling’) ruled on 17 January 2024 in the appeal brought 
in a similar case (ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:32) that the State Secretary could not 
terminate the temporary protection of the optional group as of 4 September 2023. 
In that ruling, the Afdeling also considered that the temporary protection of the 
optional group would end by operation of law on 4 March 2024. The State 
Secretary informed the appellant of this by letter dated 24 January 2024. 
10 By decision of 7 February 2024, the State Secretary subsequently imposed a 
return decision. In that decision, he referred to the Afdeling’s judgment 
of 17 January 2024, from which it follows that the appellant’s lawful residence 
ends by operation of law as of 4 March 2024. The appellant had to leave the 
territory of the European Union and was given four weeks to do so.  
11 The appellant lodged an appeal against that return decision with the referring 
court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
12 The appellant has argued that the return decision is premature. Moreover, the 
return decision is unlawful because the temporary protection of third-country 
nationals such as the appellant continues in any event until 4 March 2025. The 
appellant derives his right of residence directly from the application of EU law. 
Since he already belonged to the group to whom the Temporary Protection 
Directive applied, he is also covered by the extension of temporary protection by 
the Extension Decision of 19 October 2023. In his view, the Afdeling’s ruling 
of 17 January 2024 is based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the 
Temporary Protection Directive. Because he still enjoys temporary protection, a 
return decision cannot be imposed.  
13 The State Secretary argued before the referring court that the temporary protection 
ended by operation of law on 4 March 2024, as extensively reasoned in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-244/24 
 
6  
Afdeling’s ruling. The appellant’s arguments are broadly consistent with those 
made before the Afdeling.  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Question 1 and 2: is the return decision premature? 
14 The State Secretary made the decision on 7 February 2024, while at that time the 
appellant still had lawful residence under the Temporary Protection Directive. The 
Rechtbank (District Court) is of the view that the answer to the question of 
whether this rendered the decision premature, is not so obvious as to be beyond 
reasonable doubt.  
15 Article 2(1) of the Return Directive provides that this Directive applies to third-
country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State. Article 6(1) 
of the Return Directive (transposed in the Netherlands in Article 62a(1) Vw) 
provides that a return decision will be issued to any third-country national staying 
illegally on such territory. Article 6(6) provides that the Directive does not prevent 
a decision on the ending of a legal stay and a return decision being adopted in 
Member States in a single decision or act. These articles seem to imply that illegal 
residence must be established no later than the time at which the return decision is 
issued. Against this background, it could be held that no return decision can be 
issued as long as there is no unlawful residence.  
16 The Rechtbank finds support for this reading in paragraph 59 of the Gnandi 
judgment, which considered that a return decision can be issued immediately after 
a rejection (of an application for international protection) or together with it in a 
single administrative act. Advocate General Mengozzi takes the same view in his 
Opinion in this case. In point 49, he says in so many words that third-country 
nationals who are not illegally staying on the territory or who fall under one of the 
exceptions, are in principle excluded from the procedures of that Directive as long 
as the grounds for exclusion remain. The Arslan judgment, which the Advocate 
General cites several times, also seems to point in this direction. It can be inferred 
from paragraphs 48 and 49 of that judgment that the Return Directive does not 
apply to a third-country national as long as he or she is still lawfully resident on 
the territory of the Member State.  
17 There are thus several indications that the State Secretary was not competent to 
make the return decision as early as 7 February 2024, because the appellant still 
had lawful residence at that time. This could therefore constitute a premature 
decision.  
18 However, there were good reasons for issuing the appellant’s return decision in 
this way. In the judgment of 17 January 2024, the Afdeling not only ruled that 
residence under the Temporary Protection Directive ended by operation of law as 
of 4 March 2024, but also considered that it was up to the State Secretary to 
KADUNA 
 
7 
determine the form in which he would communicate this to the foreign nationals 
concerned. For legal protection purposes, the State Secretary then sent an 
information letter to the optional group and decided to issue the return decisions in 
two batches on 7 February and 23 February 2024. The foreign nationals would 
thus be informed earlier of the consequences of the ending of lawful residence and 
would have more time to file any legal appeals. Moreover, the fact that the return 
decision was issued a few weeks before the moment at which, according to the 
State Secretary, lawful residence was to end could, according to the Rechtbank, be 
expedient because the Member State must proceed to remove the foreign national 
as soon as possible, as follows from paragraphs 79 and 80 of the TQ judgment.  
19 Moreover, it follows from the Return Decision itself that its consequences do not 
take effect until the moment when lawful residence ceases to exist. The Decision 
clearly states that, as from 5 March 2024, the appellant will no longer be lawfully 
residing in the Netherlands and that the departure notice period will start running 
on that date. From that point onwards, the Return Directive applies. On the other 
hand, any legal appeals would have to be lodged within four weeks of the date of 
the Decision and not only within four weeks of 4 March 2024. 
Question 3: was the temporary protection terminated by operation of law on 
4 March 2024? 
20 According to the State Secretary, the temporary protection under the Temporary 
Protection Directive ended by operation of law on 4 March 2024. He refers in this 
regard to the Afdeling’s ruling of 17 January 2024.  
21 In that ruling, the Afdeling reasoned as follows. The Netherlands initially chose to 
apply the Temporary Protection Directive generously. For this reason, the 
Netherlands applied the optional provision of Article 2(3) of the Implementing 
Decision to grant temporary protection also to the optional group. According to 
the Afdeling, the Temporary Protection Directive fully applies to this group. For 
the duration of the protection, there should therefore be compliance with Article 4 
of that Directive. According to the Afdeling, the duration of the temporary 
protection could not be arbitrarily terminated at any given moment by national 
law. The general scheme of Article 4 of the Directive means that the temporary 
protection of this group could not be terminated as of 4 September 2023. 
According to the Afdeling, the text of the first paragraph of this article does not 
provide any grounds for assuming that the temporary protection of the optional 
group could be assessed differently from that of other categories of displaced 
persons enjoying temporary protection. The Afdeling considers it decisive here 
that there is no separate assessment moment in the case of automatic extensions of 
protection under the Temporary Protection Directive.  
22 According to the Afdeling, the situation is different in the case of the extension of 
the temporary protection from 4 March 2024 to 4 March 2025. According to the 
Afdeling, the first and second paragraphs of Article 4 address different situations. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-244/24 
 
8  
The first paragraph provides for the initial duration and its automatic renewal. 
This situation is provided for in the Implementing Decision.  
23 The second paragraph deals with a new situation, in which the Council, on a 
proposal from the Commission, reassesses whether there are still grounds to grant 
temporary protection. This was laid down for displaced persons from Ukraine in 
the Extension Decision. The Afdeling deduces from the Extension Decision that 
the extension only applies to other beneficiaries to the extent that Member States 
were still applying the optional provision at that time. That is not the case for the 
Netherlands: since 19 July 2022, the Netherlands no longer grants temporary 
protection under the optional provision to third-country nationals other than 
Ukrainians who had not yet registered in the Personal Records Database at that 
time. Temporary protection for the optional group therefore ends by operation of 
law on 4 March 2024. In this regard, the Afdeling refers to Article 1 of the 
Extension Decision, which stipulates that the temporary protection given to 
persons displaced from Ukraine referred to in Article 2 of the Implementing 
Decision is extended for a period of one year until 4 March 2025. Since this 
Extension Decision dates from after 19 July 2022, Article 1 of the Extension 
Decision and the extension until 4 March 2025 provided for therein do not apply 
to the optional group. The Afdeling finds support for this interpretation in the 
Commission’s proposal for an extension decision of 19 September 2023. 1 The 
explanatory memorandum to that proposal, in particular footnote 2, does not 
mention the optional provision of Article 2(3) of the Implementing Decision. This 
leads the Afdeling to infer that Article 2(3) of the Implementing Decision is 
relevant to the Extension Decision only to the extent that Member States were 
applying that provision at the time the Extension Decision was adopted by the 
Council. 
24 The Rechtbank is of the view that there could be reasonable doubt as to whether 
the Afdeling proceeded on a correct interpretation of EU law in that regard.  
25 As a matter of principle, in the event of shared competence between the European 
Union and the Member States in a particular area, the Member States may no 
longer exercise their competence in that area once the European Union exercises 
its competence. This follows from Article 2(2) TFEU, Protocol 25 to the TFEU on 
the exercise of shared competence, and Declaration 18 in relation to the 
delimitation of competences. In his Opinion in Germany v Council, Advocate 
General Szpunar considers that where, and to the extent that, the European Union 
exercises its power to legislate and adopt legally binding acts in an area, the 
Member States may no longer act. In point 61 of her Opinion in Opinion 2/15, 
Advocate General Sharpston explains this ‘right of pre-emption’ as follows: 
‘every competence exercised in a shared area is either exercised by the European 
Union or exercised by the Member States. It cannot be in limbo between the two.’ 
It follows from Articles 4(2)(j) and 77 TFEU that asylum and immigration is an 
 
1 Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision extending temporary protection as introduced by 
Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, COM (2023) 546 final. 
KADUNA 
 
9 
area of shared competence. This means that Member States can no longer regulate 
a particular aspect of asylum and immigration if the European Union exercises its 
competence in that area.  
26 Given this division of competences, the Rechtbank cannot support the distinction 
drawn by the Afdeling with regard to the duration of temporary protection, 
between the optional group and the other groups. The Netherlands has applied the 
optional provision of Article 2(3) of the Implementing Decision to the group of 
third-country nationals with temporary residence permits in Ukraine who entered 
before 19 July 2022. The appellant belongs to this group. This brought this group 
fully within the scope of the Directive under Article 7 of the Temporary 
Protection Directive. The text of Article 7 of the Directive clearly expresses this, 
as it refers to temporary protection ‘as provided for in this Directive’. 
27 These words were not included in the original proposal, but were added later at 
the suggestion of the European Parliament, with the following explanation being 
given, ‘Other categories of persons who are offered temporary protection by the 
Member States should be subject to the same rules as those coming under 
European legislation.’2 The addition followed a discussion on the proposal, with 
the German delegation questioning whether the other provisions of the Directive, 
including those relating to duration, would apply if Member States implemented 
Article 7 of the Directive. The Irish delegation wanted to add to the provision that, 
in that case, national law would apply. 3 The agreement reached by the Council 
did not adopt the Irish proposal, but chose to add the words ‘as provided for in this 
Directive’ to Article 7.  
28 The Rechtbank reads Article 7 of the Temporary Protection Directive as meaning 
that the protection that Member States may extend to additional groups of 
displaced persons under this provision must be consistent with the other 
provisions of the Directive, including its duration. This means that Articles 4 and 
6 of the Temporary Protection Directive lay down mandatory and exhaustive rules 
on the duration and termination options of temporary protection even for the 
categories of persons to whom Member States have granted temporary protection 
under the optional provision. Thus, where Member States have granted temporary 
protection on the basis of the optional provision under the Directive, this 
temporary protection can only end once the maximum duration of the temporary 
protection has been reached, or earlier if the Council decides to terminate the 
temporary protection. Thus, also for this group of beneficiaries, Member States 
have no independent power to go back on the decision to grant temporary 
protection under the optional provision. Indeed, the Union legislator has exercised 
 
2 Report on the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary 
protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a 
balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the 
consequences thereof of 28 February 2001 (A5-0077/2001). 
3  Document 6128/01 (ASILE 15) of the Council of 16 February 2001. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-244/24 
 
10  
the power to determine the duration of temporary protection for all beneficiaries 
under the Temporary Protection Directive.  
29 The Rechtbank sees no reason to assume that this will change with the Council’s 
decision to extend the duration of temporary protection until 4 March 2025. The 
Extension Decision itself does not seem to distinguish between the different 
groups either. According to its text, Article 1 of the Decision refers to the 
temporary protection granted to displaced persons from Ukraine referred to in 
Article 2 of the Implementing Decision. This includes the optional group 
mentioned in paragraph 3 of this provision. This implies that a group brought 
within the scope of the Temporary Protection Directive through the optional 
provision is also covered by that Extension Decision.  
30 The distinction made by the Afdeling between the different groups in Article 2 of 
the Implementing Decision is difficult to reconcile with the foregoing. In addition, 
that distinction seems to conflict with the pre-emption rule outlined in 
paragraph 27, according to which a Member State may not exercise powers in an 
area to the extent that, and for as long as, the European Union does so. Given that 
the European Union has exercised its power to determine the duration of 
temporary protection, it is obvious that, following the per se non-mandatory 
application of the optional provision and the waiver of the safe country of origin 
test, the State Secretary has no power to adopt a scheme for the duration of 
temporary protection that differs from the Directive. This interpretation is also 
consistent with the Commission’s explanatory memorandum to the proposal for 
the Extension Decision that the Temporary Protection Directive should ensure that 
the same standards and a harmonised set of rights are applied to people who were 
received in the European Union at the time of the Extension Decision (see page 5 
of the proposal). In this regard, it does not seem appropriate that the duration of 
temporary protection under the Directive should vary for different groups of 
displaced persons.  
31 The Rechtbank also has other doubts about the Afdeling’s interpretation of the 
provisions of the Temporary Protection Directive. In its ruling, the Afdeling 
argues that there is a relevant difference between the first and second paragraphs 
of Article 4 of the Temporary Protection Directive: the first paragraph deals with 
automatic renewal and thus does not imply a separate assessment moment, while 
the second paragraph (the renewal following a Council decision to that effect) 
does require a new assessment, according to the Afdeling. The Rechtbank does 
not see why it should be possible to infer from the fact that, according to the 
second paragraph of Article 4, a Council decision is required for the further 
extension of the temporary protection granted, that the circle of beneficiaries 
would also be subject to a new assessment by the Member States. It seems more in 
line with the text of this article and of Article 1 of the Extension Decision that 
only the Council should decide whether protection should be extended for the 
group already receiving protection at that time, thus including the group of 
persons brought under the Temporary Protection Directive by the Netherlands 
under the optional provision.  
KADUNA 
 
11 
32 The Rechtbank sees no basis for the view that in this situation the Member States 
have a competence to change the circle of beneficiaries. The situation for the 
group brought under the protection of the Temporary Protection Directive through 
the optional provision has not changed any more than for the group that was 
directly covered by the Temporary Protection Directive. The State Secretary 
applied the optional provision generously on 19 March 2022, voluntarily waiving 
the safe country of origin test. It is therefore obvious that the State Secretary 
should bear the consequences for the reception of this group. In this regard, the 
explanatory memorandum to the proposal for the Extension Decision states that 
the Decision provides for the extension of the temporary protection by one year 
for the specific group of persons to whom it already applies (page 5). This is the 
case in respect of the appellant and the others in the optional group.  
33 Nor does the Afdeling’s reference in the judgment of 17 January 2024 to 
footnote 2 in the proposed Extension Decision convince the Rechtbank. That 
footnote does not mention the third paragraph of Article 2 of the Implementing 
Decision. This leads the Afdeling to infer that Article 2(3) of the Implementing 
Decision is relevant to the Extension Decision only to the extent that Member 
States applied this provision at the time the Extension Decision was adopted by 
the Council. Rather, according to the Rechtbank, it is obvious that the 
Commission did not mention Article 2(3) because this passage refers only to the 
group of persons for whom the Council activated the temporary protection in the 
first place. Instead, the optional provision refers to groups activated by Member 
States, namely in the case of the Netherlands, the group of third-country nationals 
with a temporary right of residence in Ukraine who entered before 19 July 2022. 
34 The Rechtbank considers that there is sufficient reason to assume that a correct 
interpretation of EU law means that the group that was brought within the scope 
of the Temporary Protection Directive by application of the optional provision 
also falls within the scope of the Extension Decision and is thus entitled to 
temporary protection under the Directive until 4 March 2025. However, the 
Afdeling’s ruling of 17 January 2024 says otherwise.  
Request for determination pursuant to the expedited procedure 
35 It is likely that, if the normal procedure is followed, the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling will not be answered before the maximum duration of 
temporary protection is reached. The Rechtbank therefore requests the Court of 
Justice to deal with the case under the expedited procedure. According to the 
Rechtbank, the nature of this case requires that it be dealt with within a short time 
as referred to in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 
Indeed, prolonged uncertainty about the outcome may impede the functioning of 
the temporary protection system established by the Temporary Protection 
Directive. The Rechtbank refers in this regard to the orders of the President of the 
Court in the Mengesteab, Kozlowski and Jafari cases.