The Bottom Line
- Legal Certainty: The Dutch government’s decision to end temporary protection for third-country nationals (who held temporary, not permanent, residence in Ukraine) as of March 4, 2024, has been definitively upheld by the courts.
- Employment Implications: Companies employing individuals from this specific group must ensure their staff have secured an alternative legal basis for residence and work, as their rights under the Temporary Protection Directive have expired.
- Policy Distinction Confirmed: This ruling solidifies the government’s authority to differentiate between categories of displaced persons, limiting the extended, EU-mandated protection to Ukrainian nationals and those with permanent residency in Ukraine.
The Details
Following the invasion of Ukraine, the Netherlands, like other EU members, activated the Temporary Protection Directive. This protection was extended not only to Ukrainian nationals but also, on a voluntary basis, to third-country nationals who had been living in Ukraine on temporary permits, such as for work or study. However, the Dutch government later specified that this facultative protection for third-country nationals would end, setting a final date of March 4, 2024. This policy created a distinct status for this group compared to Ukrainian citizens, whose protection was extended.
The court case arose from a challenge to this termination. The claimant, a third-country national, argued that the government’s decision to end their protection was unlawful and violated the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation. The core of the dispute was whether the government could legally differentiate between displaced groups and whether any binding promises had been made to suggest that the protection for third-country nationals would be extended in line with that for Ukrainians.
The District Court of The Hague ultimately ruled in favor of the government, dismissing the appeal. Crucially, the court aligned its decision with previous landmark rulings from the Council of State, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands. It concluded that since the initial protection for this group was granted on a voluntary (facultative) basis and not as a strict requirement of the EU Directive, the state had the authority to define its duration and bring it to an end. The court found no evidence of binding commitments that would have prevented the March 4, 2024, cut-off, thereby validating the government’s policy.
Source
District Court of The Hague
