The Bottom Line
- Hiring Impact: Companies cannot assume all Ukrainian nationals qualify for the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive, which grants an immediate right to work. This ruling significantly narrows the scope for individuals who had established residence outside Ukraine before the 2022 invasion.
- The Decisive Factor: An individual’s primary residence at the time of the invasion is critical. The court ruled that a person who had already moved and was living abroad before the war is not considered “displaced” by the conflict, even if they were visiting Ukraine when it began.
- Compliance is Key: Businesses must verify the specific residence status of Ukrainian hires. Relying on nationality alone is insufficient and could lead to employing someone without the correct work authorization, as they may need to follow the standard (and longer) asylum procedure instead.
The Details
This case concerned a Ukrainian national who had been living and working in Russia since July 2019. Although he maintained a house in Ukraine and visited regularly, his main residence was in Russia. He happened to be in Ukraine from January 2022 to finalize the sale of his house, a process he completed just after the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. He subsequently returned to Russia before traveling to the Netherlands in 2024 to seek protection under the Temporary Protection Directive. The Dutch government denied his request, arguing he did not qualify as a person displaced by the war.
The District Court of The Hague upheld the government’s decision. The legal reasoning hinges on the definition of being “displaced” under the EU Directive. The court determined that the Directive is intended to protect those who were forced to flee their established homes in Ukraine as a direct result of the 2022 invasion. In this individual’s case, his departure from Ukraine had occurred voluntarily in 2019. His primary residence and daily life were in Russia. His presence in Ukraine during the invasion was temporary and did not re-establish his residency there. Therefore, he was not “displaced” from Ukraine by the conflict in the legal sense.
For business leaders and legal counsel, this judgment draws a crucial distinction between nationality and eligibility for special protective status. It confirms that the simplified, business-friendly procedures of the Temporary Protection Directive are not a catch-all for every Ukrainian citizen. The causal link between the 2022 invasion and the individual’s displacement is paramount. This ruling reinforces the need for rigorous due diligence in the hiring process. While individuals who don’t qualify for temporary protection can still apply for asylum, that is a separate legal track with different timelines and conditions for obtaining the right to work in the Netherlands.
Source
Source: District Court of The Hague
