62023CJ0753
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)
27 February 2025 (
*1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons – Directive 2001/55/EC – Articles 8 and 11 – Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 – Successive applications for a residence permit for the purposes of temporary protection in several Member States – Examination of the subsequent application – Right to an effective remedy)
In Case C‑753/23 [Krasiliva (
i
)],
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic), made by decision of 30 November 2023, received at the Court on 7 December 2023, in the proceedings
A.N.
v
Ministerstvo vnitra,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of D. Gratsias, President of the Chamber, I. Jarukaitis, President of the Fourth Chamber, and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), Judge,
Advocate General: M. Szpunar,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–
the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, A. Edelmannová and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,
–
the Greek Government, by G. Karipsiadis and T. Papadopoulou, acting as Agents,
–
the European Commission, by A. Azéma, A. Katsimerou and M. Salyková, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8(1) and Article 11 of 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 (OJ 2001 L 212, p. 12), and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2
The request has been made in proceedings between A.N., a Ukrainian national, and the Ministerstvo vnitra (Ministry of the Interior, Czech Republic), concerning the granting of a residence permit in the context of the temporary protection provided for by Directive 2001/55.
Legal context
European Union law
Directive 2001/55
3
Article 1 of Directive 2001/55 provides:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to establish minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin and to promote a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving such persons.’
4
Article 5(1) to (3) of that directive provides:
‘1.   The existence of a mass influx of displaced persons shall be established by a [decision of the Council of the European Union] adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the [European] Commission, which shall also examine any request by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council.
2.   The Commission proposal shall include at least:
(a)
a description of the specific groups of persons to whom the temporary protection will apply;
(b)
the date on which the temporary protection will take effect;
(c)
an estimation of the scale of the movements of displaced persons.
3.   The Council Decision shall have the effect of introducing temporary protection for the displaced persons to which it refers, in all the Member States, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. The Decision shall include at least:
(a)
a description of the specific groups of persons to whom the temporary protection applies;
(b)
the date on which the temporary protection will take effect;
(c)
information received from Member States on their reception capacity;
(d)
information from the Commission, [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)] and other relevant international organisations.’
5
Article 8 of that directive is worded as follows:
‘1.   The Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to provide persons enjoying temporary protection with residence permits for the entire duration of the protection. Documents or other equivalent evidence shall be issued for that purpose.
2.   Whatever the period of validity of the residence permits referred to in paragraph 1, the treatment granted by the Member States to persons enjoying temporary protection may not be less favourable than that set out in Articles 9 to 16.
3.   The Member States shall, if necessary, provide persons to be admitted to their territory for the purposes of temporary protection with every facility for obtaining the necessary visas, including transit visas. Formalities must be reduced to a minimum because of the urgency of the situation. Visas should be free of charge or their cost reduced to a minimum.’
6
Article 11 of that directive provides:
‘A Member State shall take back a person enjoying temporary protection on its territory, if the said person remains on, or seeks to enter without authorisation onto, the territory of another Member State during the period covered by the Council Decision referred to in Article 5. Member States may, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, decide that this Article should not apply.’
7
Article 28 of Directive 2001/55 provides for the cases in which Member States may exclude persons covered by that directive from temporary protection within the meaning of that directive.
8
Under Article 29 of that directive:
‘Persons who have been excluded from the benefit of temporary protection or family reunification by a Member State shall be entitled to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned.’
Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382
9
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 (OJ 2022 L 71, p. 1), states, in recitals 15 and 16 thereof:
‘(15)
It is noted that Member States have agreed in a statement that they will not apply Article 11 of [Directive 2001/55].
(16)
Temporary protection is the most appropriate instrument in the current situation. Given the extraordinary and exceptional situation, including the military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and the scale of the mass influx of displaced persons, temporary protection should allow them to enjoy harmonised rights across the [European] Union that offer an adequate level of protection. Introducing temporary protection is also expected to benefit the Member States, as the rights accompanying temporary protection limit the need for displaced persons to immediately seek international protection and thus the risk of overwhelming their asylum systems, as they reduce formalities to a minimum because of the urgency of the situation. Furthermore, Ukrainian nationals, as visa-free travellers, have the right to move freely within the Union after being admitted into the territory for a 90-day period. On this basis, they are able to choose the Member State in which they want to enjoy the rights attached to temporary protection and to join their family and friends across the significant diaspora networks that currently exist across the Union. This will in practice facilitate a balance of efforts between Member States, thereby reducing the pressure on national reception systems. Once a Member State has issued a residence permit in accordance with [Directive 2001/55], the person enjoying temporary protection, whilst having the right to travel within the Union for 90 days within a 180-day period, should be able to avail of the rights derived from temporary protection only in the Member State that issued the residence permit. This should be without prejudice to the possibility for a Member State to decide to issue, at any time, a residence permit to persons enjoying temporary protection under this Decision.’
10
Article 1 of that implementing decision provides:
‘The existence of a mass influx into the Union of displaced persons who have had to leave Ukraine as a consequence of an armed conflict is hereby established.’
11
Under Article 2(1)(a) of that implementing decision:
‘This Decision applies to the following categories of persons displaced from Ukraine on or after 24 February 2022, as a result of the military invasion by Russian armed forces that began on that date:
(a)
Ukrainian nationals residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022’.
Czech law
Law No 221/2003 on the temporary protection of foreign nationals
12
Directive 2001/55 was transposed into Czech law by zákon č. 221/2003 Sb., o dočasné ochraně cizinců (Law No 221/2003 on the temporary protection of foreign nationals).
13
Paragraph 1 of that law, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides:
‘(1)   This Law governs:
(a)
the conditions of entry and residence of foreign nationals on the territory of the Czech Republic (“the territory”) for the purposes of giving temporary protection and their departure from the territory;
(b)
the procedure for the granting and withdrawal of a right of residence for the purpose of giving temporary protection on the territory (“the right of residence for the purposes of temporary protection”);
…’
The ‘Ukraine’ Law
14
Zákon č. 65/2022 Sb., o některých opatřeních v souvislosti s ozbrojeným konfliktem na území Ukrajiny vyvolaným invazi vojsk Ruské federace (Law No 65/2022 on certain measures in connection with the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine caused by the invasion of troops of the Russian Federation), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the “Ukraine” Law’), provides, in Paragraph 2 thereof, that ‘“temporary protection” means the right to stay on the territory of the Czech Republic under [Law No 221/2003] on the temporary protection of foreign nationals …’
15
Paragraph 4 of the ‘Ukraine’ Law, entitled ‘Procedure relating to temporary protection’, provides, in subparagraph (3) thereof:
‘Unless otherwise provided for in this Law, the giving of temporary protection under this Law shall be governed by [Law No 221/2003] on the temporary protection of foreign nationals.’
16
Under Paragraph 5(1) and (2) of the ‘Ukraine’ Law:
‘(1)   An application for temporary protection shall be inadmissible if:
(a)
it is not submitted in person;
(b)
it is submitted by a foreign national who is not referred to in Paragraph 3;
(c)
it is submitted by a foreign national who has applied for temporary or international protection in another Member State of the European Union;
(d)
it is submitted by a foreign national who has been given temporary or international protection in another Member State of the European Union; or
(e)
it is submitted by a foreign national who is a citizen of the European Union, of a State bound by an international treaty negotiated with the European Union which gives him or her a right to free movement equivalent to that of citizens of the European Union, or of a State bound by the Agreement on the European Economic Area [of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3)].
2.   The Ministry of the Interior or the Police of the Czech Republic shall reject an inadmissible application and shall inform the foreign national of the reason for its inadmissibility. Judicial review shall be excluded.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
17
On 15 July 2022, A.N., a Ukrainian national, entered the territory of the European Union. On 19 July 2022, she submitted an application for temporary protection in Germany. Two months later, on 20 September 2022, she submitted a similar application in the Czech Republic. That second application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior as inadmissible on the ground, inter alia, that A.N. had applied for or obtained temporary protection in another Member State.
18
A.N. brought an action against that rejection before the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court, Czech Republic). That court found, in the first place, that it had jurisdiction to hear that action, irrespective of the fact that the relevant national legislation excluded the possibility of judicial review of the decision to reject an application for temporary protection as being inadmissible. It held that the right to such a remedy was apparent from Article 29 of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter.
19
In the second place, the Městský soud (Prague City Court) found, first, that, although A.N. had submitted an application for temporary protection in Germany, that protection had not been granted to her to date and, second, that Directive 2001/55 did not provide that such an application could be rejected on the ground that an application for temporary protection had previously been submitted in another Member State. The grounds for excluding a person from temporary protection are exhaustively set out in Article 28 of Directive 2001/55, with the result that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings does not comply with EU law. On those grounds, the Městský soud (Prague City Court) upheld A.N.’s action, annulled the decision of the Ministry of the Interior and referred the case back to that ministry.
20
The Ministry of the Interior lodged an appeal on a point of law against that judgment with the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic), which is the referring court. That ministry maintained that, where a person has applied for temporary protection in a Member State, it is for that Member State to decide on that application. It is not possible to enjoy that protection in several Member States. According to the Ministry of the Interior, the situation at issue in the main proceedings does not fall within the scope of Article 28 of Directive 2001/55. The provision of national law providing for the inadmissibility of an application such as that of A.N. applies to situations not governed by that directive.
21
In those circumstances, the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Does Article 8(1) of [Directive 2001/55], having regard also to the Member States’ agreement not to apply Article 11 of that directive, preclude national legislation under which an application for a residence permit for the purpose of giving temporary protection is inadmissible if the foreign national has applied for a residence permit in another Member State or has already been granted a [residence] permit in another Member State?
(2)
Does a person enjoying temporary protection under [Directive 2001/55] have the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal under Article 47 of the [Charter] against the failure of a Member State to grant a residence permit within the meaning of Article 8(1) of [that directive]?’
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
22
By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the granting of a residence permit referred to in that provision is to be refused to a person enjoying temporary protection, referred to in Implementing Decision 2022/382, where that person has already applied for such a residence permit in another Member State. In that context, the referring court also questions the scope of the agreement of the Member States, concluded in connection with the adoption of Implementing Decision 2022/382, not to apply Article 11 of Directive 2001/55.
23
In accordance with Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, the Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to provide persons enjoying temporary protection with residence permits for the entire duration of the protection. That provision also states that documents or other equivalent evidence are to be issued for that purpose.
24
As is stated in Article 1 thereof, the purpose of Directive 2001/55 is to establish minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin and to promote a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving such persons (judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna, C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 81).
25
Under Article 5 of Directive 2001/55, the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons is to be established by a decision of the Council, adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. That decision is to be based, inter alia, on an examination of the situation and the scale of the movements of displaced persons and on an assessment of the advisability of establishing temporary protection, taking into account the potential for emergency aid and action on the ground or the inadequacy of such measures. That decision is to have the effect of introducing temporary protection in all the Member States for the specific groups of persons described in that decision, from the date laid down therein (judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna, C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 83).
26
Pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2001/55, the Council adopted, on 4 March 2022, Implementing Decision 2022/382 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine. The entry into force of that implementing decision, which occurred on the same date, therefore introduced, from that date, mandatory temporary protection for the categories of persons specified in Article 2 thereof, in particular for Ukrainian nationals residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022 (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna, C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 84).
27
Furthermore, it is apparent from recital 16 of Implementing Decision 2022/382 that Ukrainian nationals, as visa-free travellers, have the right to move freely within the European Union after being admitted into its territory for a 90-day period and are able to choose the Member State in which they want to enjoy the rights attached to temporary protection.
28
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that persons falling within the categories referred to in Article 2 of Implementing Decision 2022/382 have the right to apply to the authorities of the Member State of their choice for a residence permit referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55.
29
Accordingly, where a person enjoying temporary protection has, in one Member State, applied for a residence permit, on the basis of Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, but has not yet obtained it, and subsequently travels to a second Member State and submits a similar application there, the second Member State cannot reject that second application as inadmissible on the sole ground that an application has already been submitted in the first Member State. It is therefore for that second Member State to examine the merits of the application submitted to it.
30
It is, however, open to the authorities of a Member State to verify, in the course of examining such an application, (i) whether the persons seeking a residence permit referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55 fall within the categories of persons referred to in Article 2 of Implementing Decision 2022/382 and enjoy temporary protection and (ii) whether those persons have already obtained a residence permit in another Member State.
31
Furthermore, given that the referring court also questions the significance, for the answer to be given to the first question, of the statement made by the Member States, referred to in recital 15 of Implementing Decision 2022/382, that they will not apply Article 11 of Directive 2001/55, it should be noted that, under that article, a Member State is to take back a person enjoying temporary protection on its territory if the said person remains on, or seeks to enter without authorisation onto, the territory of another Member State during the period covered by the temporary protection.
32
However, as is apparent from the statement made by the Member States referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, that article is not applicable to persons enjoying temporary protection who fall within the scope of Implementing Decision 2022/382. Moreover, it is apparent from recital 16 of that implementing decision that Ukrainian nationals, as visa-free travellers, have the right to move freely within the European Union after being admitted into its territory for a 90-day period, in order, inter alia, to choose the Member State in which they want to enjoy the rights attached to temporary protection. That article is therefore not relevant for the purpose of answering the first question.
33
In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the granting of a residence permit is to be refused to a person enjoying temporary protection, referred to in Implementing Decision 2022/382, where that person has already applied for, but has not yet obtained, such a permit in another Member State.
The second question
34
By its second question, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, is to be interpreted as meaning that a person enjoying temporary protection under that directive has a right to an effective remedy before a tribunal against a decision to reject as inadmissible an application for a residence permit, within the meaning of Article 8 thereof.
35
In accordance with settled case-law, the recognition, in a given case, of the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter presupposes that the person invoking that right is relying on rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, protectus, C‑185/23, EU:C:2024:657, paragraph 71).
36
In that regard, as is apparent, in essence, from paragraphs 23 to 26 of the present judgment, the decision of the Council, adopted under Article 5 of Directive 2001/55, is to have the effect of introducing temporary protection in all the Member States for the specific groups of persons described in that decision. Under Article 8(1) of that directive, Member States are required to adopt the necessary measures to provide those persons with residence permits for the entire duration of that protection and to issue them, for that purpose, with documents or other equivalent evidence. Accordingly, the right of those persons to a residence permit and to obtain evidence in that regard is a right guaranteed by the legal order of the European Union.
37
Consequently, Article 47 of the Charter requires that a decision to reject as inadmissible an application for a residence permit, under Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, made by a person enjoying temporary protection within the meaning of that directive may be the subject of an effective remedy before a tribunal.
38
It should be borne in mind, in that context, that Article 47 of the Charter constitutes a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection. That article is sufficient in itself and does not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law in order to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such. The same must hold true for Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55 (see, by analogy, judgment of 4 October 2024, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, C‑406/22, EU:C:2024:841, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).
39
Furthermore, that interpretation is in no way called into question by the fact that Article 29 of Directive 2001/55 expressly provides that only persons who have been excluded from the benefit of temporary protection or family reunification by a Member State are entitled to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned. As is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 35 to 38 of the present judgment, it cannot be inferred a contrario from that provision that only those persons should be entitled to mount such legal challenges.
40
In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a person enjoying temporary protection under that directive has a right to an effective remedy before a tribunal against a decision to reject as inadmissible an application for a residence permit, within the meaning of Article 8 thereof.
Costs
41
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:
1.
Article 8(1) of 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
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the granting of a residence permit is to be refused to a person enjoying temporary protection, referred to in 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, where that person has already applied for, but has not yet obtained, such a permit in another Member State.
2.
Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that a person enjoying temporary protection under that directive has a right to an effective remedy before a tribunal against a decision to reject as inadmissible an application for a residence permit, within the meaning of Article 8 thereof.
[Signatures]
(
*1
)	Language of the case: Czech.
(
i
)	The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.