The Bottom Line
- Eligibility is Not Automatic: Companies cannot assume all Ukrainian passport holders are automatically entitled to temporary protection and associated work rights. The reason and timing of their departure from Ukraine are critical.
- “Displaced by War” is the Key Test: An individual who left Ukraine for reasons such as work or study before the conflict began may not qualify for protection, even if they are a Ukrainian citizen.
- Proof of Intent to Resettle is a High Bar: A short return visit to Ukraine before the full-scale invasion is not enough to qualify. The court requires strong evidence of a genuine plan to live there permanently again, which can be difficult to prove.
The Details
A recent ruling from the District Court of The Hague provides a crucial clarification on the scope of the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) for Ukrainian nationals. The case involved a young Ukrainian citizen who had moved to Poland to study in October 2021, several months before the full-scale invasion. When he later sought temporary protection in the Netherlands, the Dutch immigration authorities denied his application, arguing that he was not “displaced” by the war, as he had already established residency abroad. This decision sets a clear precedent: the primary purpose of the Directive is to protect those who were forced to flee the conflict itself, not all citizens living abroad.
The claimant argued that despite studying in Poland, the “center of his personal and social interests” remained in Ukraine, which he still considered his home. He contended this should be the defining factor for eligibility. In addition, he had briefly returned to Ukraine for a family visit between December 2021 and January 2022, which he claimed demonstrated an intention to resettle there permanently. He presented an online employment contract and a record of a single medical appointment as evidence of this intent.
The Court sided firmly with the state’s interpretation. It dismissed the “center of interests” argument, emphasizing that the legal definition of a “displaced person” under the Directive focuses on those who “have had to leave their country or region of origin” as a direct result of the armed conflict. Because the claimant left for educational purposes before the key dates, he did not meet this criterion. The court also found the evidence of his intent to resettle unconvincing. An online job could be performed from anywhere, and a single doctor’s visit did not prove a plan for long-term residency. The ruling underscores that the burden of proof is high for individuals who were already living outside Ukraine when the war escalated.
Source: District Court of The Hague
