Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
1 October 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Directive 2001/55/EC – Minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof – Article 17(2) – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Granting of international protection to a person enjoying temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 – Article 31 – National administrative practice of suspending, during the temporary protection period, the running of the time limit for taking a decision on an application for international protection )
In Case C‑249/25 [Jilin], (i)
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands), made by decision of 2 April 2025, received at the Court on 2 April 2025, in the proceedings
Minister van Asiel en Migratie
v
UB,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin (Rapporteur), N. Piçarra and N. Fenger, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– UB, by F. Zeven, advocaat,
– the Netherlands Government, by M.H.S. Gijzen and J. Langer, acting as Agents,
– the Belgian Government, by L. Jans and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents,
– the German Government, by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents,
– the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents,
– the European Commission, by F. Blanc, M. Debieuvre and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 April 2026,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 17(2) 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 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between the Minister van Asiel en Migratie (Minister for Asylum and Immigration, Netherlands; ‘the Minister’) and UB concerning the possibility for the Minister of suspending the examination of UB’s application for international protection as long as UB enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55.
Legal context
European Union law
Directive 2001/55
3 Recital 18 of Directive 2001/55 states:
‘Rules should be laid down to govern access to the asylum procedure in the context of temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons, in conformity with the Member States’ international obligations and with the Treaty.’
4 Article 1 of that directive 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.’
5 Article 2(a), (c) and (d) of Directive 2001/55 provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) “temporary protection” means a procedure of exceptional character to provide, in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particular if there is also a risk that the asylum system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient operation, in the interests of the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection;
…
(c) “displaced persons” means third-country nationals or stateless persons who have had to leave their country or region of origin, or who have been evacuated …, and are unable to return in safe and durable conditions because of the situation prevailing in that country, who may fall within the scope of Article 1A of the [Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 189, p. 150, No 2545 [1954]), which entered into force on 22 April 1954 and was supplemented by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967 and which entered into force on 4 October 1967 (“the Geneva Convention”),] or other international or national instruments giving international protection, in particular:
(i) persons who have fled areas of armed conflict or endemic violence;
(ii) persons at serious risk of, or who have been the victims of, systematic or generalised violations of their human rights;
(d) “mass influx” means arrival in the [European] Community of a large number of displaced persons, who come from a specific country or geographical area, whether their arrival in the Community was spontaneous or aided, for example through an evacuation programme’.
6 In accordance with Article 3(1) of that directive:
‘Temporary protection shall not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention.’
7 Article 17 of Directive 2001/55 provides:
‘1. Persons enjoying temporary protection must be able to lodge an application for asylum at any time.
2. The examination of any asylum application not processed before the end of the period of temporary protection shall be completed after the end of that period.’
8 Article 19 of that directive provides:
‘1. The Member States may provide that temporary protection may not be enjoyed concurrently with the status of asylum seeker while applications are under consideration.
2. Where, after an asylum application has been examined, refugee status or, where applicable, other kind of protection is not granted to a person eligible for or enjoying temporary protection, the Member States shall, without prejudice to Article 28, provide for that person to enjoy or to continue to enjoy temporary protection for the remainder of the period of protection.’
Directive 2011/95/EU
9 Article 1 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), entitled ‘Purpose’, provides:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.’
10 Article 2(h) and (i) of that directive provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
…
(h) “application for international protection” means a request made by a third-country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the scope of this Directive, that can be applied for separately;
(i) “applicant” means a third-country national or a stateless person who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken’.
Directive 2013/32
11 Under Article 1 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘Purpose’:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to establish common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection pursuant to Directive [2011/95].’
12 Article 2 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides in point (b):
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
…
(b) “application for international protection” or “application” means a request made by a third-country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection outside the scope of Directive [2011/95], that can be applied for separately’.
13 Article 3 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘Scope’, provides, in paragraph 1:
‘This Directive shall apply to all applications for international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States, and to the withdrawal of international protection.’
14 Article 31 of that directive, entitled ‘Examination procedure’, provides in paragraphs 3 to 5:
‘3. Member States shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded within six months of the lodging of the application.
Where an application is subject to the procedure laid down in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31)], the time limit of six months shall start to run from the moment the Member State responsible for its examination is determined in accordance with that Regulation, the applicant is on the territory of that Member State and has been taken in charge by the competent authority.
Member States may extend the time limit of six months set out in this paragraph for a period not exceeding a further nine months, where:
(a) complex issues of fact and/or law are involved;
(b) a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply for international protection, making it very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit;
(c) where the delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with his or her obligations under Article 13.
By way of exception, Member States may, in duly justified circumstances, exceed the time limits laid down in this paragraph by a maximum of three months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.
4. Without prejudice to Articles 13 and 18 of Directive [2011/95], Member States may postpone concluding the examination procedure where the determining authority cannot reasonably be expected to decide within the time limits laid down in paragraph 3 due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be temporary. In such a case, Member States shall:
(a) conduct reviews of the situation in that country of origin at least every six months;
(b) inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable time of the reasons for the postponement;
(c) inform the [European] Commission within a reasonable time of the postponement of procedures for that country of origin.
5. In any event, Member States shall conclude the examination procedure within a maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of the application.’
Netherlands law
The General Law on administrative law
15 Article 6:12 of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht (General Law on administrative law) of 4 June 1992 (Stb. 1992, No 315) provides:
‘1. Where the application initiating proceedings is directed against the failure to adopt a decision within the time limit …, [the lodging of such an application] shall not be subject to compliance with any time limit.
2. An application initiating proceedings may be lodged as soon as:
a. the administrative authority has failed to take a timely decision … and
b. two weeks have passed since the day on which the interested party sent the administrative authority formal notice.
…’
16 Article 8:55d of the General Law on administrative law provides:
‘1. If the application is well founded and a decision has still not been notified, the administrative court shall order the administrative authority to notify a decision within two weeks from the day following the issuance of judgment.
2. The administrative court shall attach to its judgment a specific penalty payment for each day of delay on the part of the administrative authority in complying with that judgment. …
3. In specific cases or where compliance with other legal requirements so requires, the administrative court may provide for another time limit or order another measure.’
The Law on Foreign Nationals 2000
17 Article 42 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on Foreign Nationals 2000) of 23 November 2000 (Stb. 2000, No 495) provides:
‘1. A decision on an application for a temporary residence permit … shall be adopted within six months of receipt of the application.
…
4. The time limit laid down in paragraph 1 may be extended for a period not exceeding a further nine months, where:
…
5. after the extension provided for in paragraph 4, where necessary for the purposes of an adequate and complete examination of the application, the period may be further extended for a maximum of three months. …’
18 Article 43(1) of that law provides:
‘By decision [of the Minister], in the case of certain categories of foreign national who have submitted an application for a temporary residence permit …, the period laid down in Article 42(1) may be extended up to a maximum of 21 months where, in all likelihood, for a short period of time, there will be uncertainty about the situation in the country of origin and, for that reason, it is not reasonably possible to decide whether the application may be allowed …’’
19 Article 43a of that law provides as follows:
‘By way of derogation from Article 42(1) …, with regard to foreign nationals who enjoy temporary protection, a decision on an application for a temporary residence permit under Article 28 shall be adopted at a time between receipt of the application and six months after the expiry of temporary protection period. …’
The Royal Decree implementing the Law on Foreign Nationals
20 Article 3.1a of the Besluit tot uitvoering van de Vreemdelingenwet (Royal Decree implementing the Law on Foreign Nationals) of 23 November 2000 (Stb. 2000, 497) provides:
‘1. The lodging of an application for a temporary asylum residence permit means that removal will not happen while a decision as referred to in Article 5(3) of Directive [2001/55] is in force, provided that the foreign national concerned:
a. belongs to a specific group of foreign nationals defined in a decision of the Council of the European Union as referred to in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/55;
b. is the spouse of the foreign national referred to under (a), or the partner with whom that foreign national is in a stable relationship, and was living with that foreign national at the time of the events which led to the decision referred to in the introductory sentence.
c. is the minor unmarried child, whether adopted or not, of the foreign national referred to under (a) or (b).
d. is another close relative of the foreign national referred to in point (a) who, at the time of the facts giving rise to the decision referred to in the introductory sentence, was wholly or largely dependent on that foreign national and lived within the family unit, and whose abandonment would create a distressing situation; or,
e. belongs to the group, to be designated by ministerial regulation, of foreign nationals from the same country or region as the foreign national referred to in subparagraph (a), who have been displaced for the same reason and do not already enjoy protection in another country which is party to the [FEU] Treaty or the Agreement on the European Economic Area [ of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3)].
…’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
21 On 7 March 2022, UB, a Chinese national of Uyghur origin, arrived in the Netherlands with his wife, a Ukrainian national, and their child. On 13 April 2022, he lodged an application for asylum at the central reception centre for asylum seekers in Ter Apel (Netherlands).
22 Having initiated the examination of that asylum application, the competent authority found, in the course of that examination, that UB, as a family member of a Ukrainian citizen, residing in Ukraine with his wife and their child before 24 February 2022, was entitled to temporary protection. In those circumstances, on the same day as UB was heard on the subject of that asylum application, the Minister informed him that there was no need to continue the examination of that application, since he satisfied the conditions required for temporary protection. In the Minister’s view, the processing of the same asylum application could resume on expiry of the temporary protection period.
23 By letter of formal notice of 16 January 2024, UB complained that the Minister had not taken a decision on his asylum application within the time limits laid down in Directive 2013/32. As no decision had been taken within two weeks of that letter being sent, UB brought an action for failure to act, before the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Arnhem (The Hague District Court, sitting in Arnhem, Netherlands).
24 The rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Arnhem (The Hague District Court, sitting in Arnhem), held that the maximum period of 21 months for concluding the procedure for examining an asylum application, referred to in Directive 2013/32, began to run in all cases from the lodging of that application for asylum. Consequently, in the present case, given that UB’s asylum application had been lodged on 13 April 2022, that court held that the Minister ought to have adjudicated on the asylum application by January 2024 at the latest. Since the Minister had not taken a decision in good time, that court ordered the latter to adjudicate on the asylum application within eight weeks of its judgment, subject to a penalty payment of EUR 100 per day of delay, up to a maximum of EUR 7 500.
25 The Minister brought an appeal against the judgment of the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Arnhem (The Hague District Court, sitting in Arnhem) before the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands), which is the referring court.
26 By that appeal, the Minister submits that it is apparent neither from the wording of the provisions of Directive 2013/32 specifying the time limits for adopting a decision on an asylum application, nor from the ‘idea underlying that directive’, that those time limits also apply in the exceptional situations governed by Directive 2001/55.
27 The referring court states that Directive 2001/55 was transposed into Netherlands law on 16 December 2004. According to that court, it follows from that transposition that an asylum application must be lodged in order to quality for temporary protection. The period for taking a decision on such an asylum application is suspended for the duration of the temporary protection, with the result that there will be no need to adjudicate on that asylum application until after the expiry of the temporary protection period.
28 The referring court considers that, in order to resolve the dispute before it, it is necessary for it to establish how the time limit for adopting a decision on an application for international protection must be determined, where the person who has lodged such an application is also a beneficiary of temporary protection.
29 In that regard, that court notes that it is apparent from a literal interpretation of Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55 that that provision is drafted in ‘open-ended terms’. In its view, although it is for the Member State concerned to complete the examination of an asylum application, either during the temporary protection period or after the expiry of that period, the fact remains that that provision does not specify when the examination of the asylum application must actually begin or how long that examination may last.
30 The referring court considers, more broadly, that the wording of the relevant provisions of Directive 2001/55 and Directive 2013/32 does not provide a decisive answer to the question of law which arises in the present case.
31 Examining the context of Directive 2001/55, that court observes that, by that directive, the EU legislature recognised the need to be able to offer, in the Member States, ‘immediate and temporary protection’ to displaced persons, in particular where there is also a risk that the asylum system of the Member States will not be able to manage properly the influx of applicants for international protection. Nevertheless, neither Directive 2001/55, nor Directive 2013/32, nor Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13), lays down derogating provisions as regards the situations covered by Directive 2001/55.
32 More broadly, the referring court considers that an overall examination of Directives 2001/55 and 2013/32 and of the case-law of the Court does not allow it to conclude with certainty that there is an option not to rule on an application for asylum lodged by a person enjoying temporary protection during the temporary protection period.
33 In those circumstances, the Raad van State (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Must Article 17(2) of Directive [2001/55] be interpreted as conferring on Member States the power to suspend the examination of an application for international protection of a person enjoying temporary protection, during the period of temporary protection?
(2) Must the decision time limits in Article 31 of Directive [2013/32] be interpreted as meaning that, where an application for international protection was made before or during the period of temporary protection by a beneficiary …, those time limits only start running or only resume running at the end of the period of temporary protection?’
Consideration of the questions referred
34 By its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55 and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as precluding the authorities of a Member State from automatically suspending the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection during the period of temporary protection, such that the time limit for adopting a decision on those applications for international protection does not begin or continue to run until after the expiry of that period.
35 As 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. As is clear from Article 2(a) of that directive, the implementation of that protection aims, in particular, to prevent the system used to grant international protection from being inundated by the mass and simultaneous submission of applications for refugee status from those persons, in the interests of the persons displaced and other persons requesting international protection.
36 That immediate and temporary protection mechanism, which is a manifestation of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States in implementing asylum policy referred to in Article 80 TFEU, is, however, as emphasised in recitals 2 and 13 and Article 2(a) of that directive, of exceptional character and must be reserved for mass influxes of displaced persons. It also confers on its beneficiaries more limited rights than those conferred by the granting of international protection, within the meaning of Directive 2011/95 (judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna, C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).
37 According to settled case-law, the interpretation of a provision of EU law requires account to be taken not only of its wording, but also, as the case may be, of its context, and the objectives pursued by the act of which it forms part. The legislative history of a provision of EU law may also reveal elements that are relevant to its interpretation (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12; of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 50; and of 26 March 2026, Gonrieh, C‑819/25 PPU, EU:C:2026:252, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
38 In the first place, it is apparent from the wording of Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55 that that provision merely lays down a rule relating to the arrangements for examining applications for international protection after the expiry of the temporary protection period, without, however, specifying the arrangements for examining those applications during that period and, in particular, whether the Member States have the option not to carry out such an examination during that period.
39 As regards, in the second place, the context surrounding Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55 and the legislative history of that provision, it should be noted, first, that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/55 specifies that temporary protection is not to prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention, while Article 17(1) of that directive provides that persons enjoying temporary protection must be able to lodge an application for asylum ‘at any time’.
40 Moreover, it is clear from Article 19(2) of that directive that where, after an asylum application has been examined, refugee status or, where applicable, other kind of protection is not granted to a person eligible for or enjoying temporary protection, that person is to enjoy or to continue to enjoy temporary protection for the remainder of the period of protection.
41 Accordingly, it is apparent from the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2001/55 that the EU legislature did not intend to establish a system in which the application of international protection procedures would be automatically disapplied or suspended, but, on the contrary, envisaged that such procedures could be conducted during the period of application of temporary protection.
42 Second, as the Advocate General observed in points 42 to 45 of his Opinion, it is apparent from the preparatory documents for Directive 2001/55 that, in the absence of an agreement on the possibility of suspending the examination of applications for international protection during the period of temporary protection, the Member States decided not to introduce that possibility in that directive, although it was included in the Commission’s initial proposal.
43 Consequently, it cannot be considered that the EU legislature implicitly provided for that possibility in Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55.
44 Accordingly, it is apparent from the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2001/55 and from the legislative history of Article 17(2) thereof that the EU legislature did not intend to establish a system in which the application of international protection procedures could or would be automatically disapplied or suspended, but, on the contrary, envisaged that such procedures could be conducted during the period of application of temporary protection.
45 Third, it is also necessary to take into consideration the general rules relating to procedures for international protection set out in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. In that regard, it should be noted, first, that Article 1 of Directive 2011/95 provides that the purpose of that directive is to lay down standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted. In addition, it follows from Article 1, in conjunction with Article 2(h) and (i), of Directive 2011/95, that that directive governs all applications for protection that can be understood to seek refugee status made to a Member State by any third-country national or stateless person.
46 Second, it is apparent from Article 1 and Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/32 that that directive, the purpose of which is to is to establish common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection pursuant to Directive 2011/95, applies to all applications for international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States.
47 It follows from those provisions that the EU legislature has in no way excluded from the scope of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 applicants for international protection who, at the time of lodging their application for such protection, already enjoy temporary protection.
48 Consequently, in the absence of any provision to the contrary in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, it must be held that the general rules laid down by those directives are normally applicable to such applicants for international protection. In particular, the time limits referred to in Article 31 of Directive 2013/32 must be regarded as applying, in principle, when examining an application for international protection irrespective of whether the applicant for that protection already enjoys temporary protection.
49 That conclusion is supported by the fact that the EU legislature has granted the Member States a certain discretion to extend the period for examining applications for international protection, where objective reasons justify such an extension.
50 In particular, point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32 provides that Member States may extend the six-month time limit for the examination of applications for international protection, for a period not exceeding a further nine months, where a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply for international protection, making it very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit.
51 In addition, it is apparent from the fourth subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32 that Member States may, in duly justified circumstances, exceed the six-month and nine-month time limits, laid down in the first subparagraph and the third subparagraph, point (b), of Article 31(3) of that directive, by a maximum of three months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.
52 Furthermore, it is apparent from Article 31(4) and (5) of Directive 2013/32 that Member States may postpone concluding the procedure for examining an application for international protection, where the determining authority cannot reasonably be expected to decide within the time limits laid down in Article 31(3), due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be temporary, provided that a final time limit of 21 months is not exceeded.
53 It follows that Article 31 allows Member States, inter alia, to exceed the six-month period ordinarily laid down for the examination of applications for international protection, in situations characterised by an increase in pressure on their international protection systems such as those which may justify the application of the temporary protection provided for by Directive 2001/55; accordingly, Article 31 itself shows that the EU legislature took due consideration of the administrative difficulties which may be caused by the increase in the number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously.
54 In the third place, it cannot be considered that a generalised and automatic suspension of the examination of applications for international protection or of the time limits for examining such applications during the period of temporary protection is necessary in order to ensure that the objectives of that directive are achieved.
55 Admittedly, as noted in paragraph 35 above, the implementation of temporary protection aims to prevent the system used to grant international protection from being inundated by the mass and simultaneous submission of applications for refugee status from displaced persons, in the interests of those persons and other persons requesting international protection.
56 However, the aforementioned directive is also intended to ensure that third-country nationals and stateless persons enjoying temporary protection continue to have a real opportunity to obtain international protection once their individual situation has been examined appropriately, while at the same time immediately ensuring that they enjoy protection on a lesser scale (judgment of 20 November 2025, Framholm, C‑195/25, EU:C:2025:904, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
57 The latter objective militates against granting the authorities of the Member States an option to suspend, in a generalised and automatic manner, the examination of applications for international protection during the period of temporary protection.
58 Moreover, the implementation, for the whole of the European Union, of the temporary protection mechanism established by Directive 2001/55 does not necessarily mean that a Member State is faced with the lodging of a number of applications for international protection exceeding the capacities of its protection system. The examination of an application for international protection lodged by a beneficiary of temporary protection cannot, therefore, be deferred solely on the ground that that such an examination may run counter to the objective recalled in paragraph 55 above.
59 Furthermore, any generalised and automatic suspension of the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection would be likely, upon expiry of the period of temporary protection, to expose the competent authorities to the burden of having to examine simultaneously a large number of applications for international protection, with the result that that measure does not really appear capable of achieving the objective of protecting national systems against inundation caused by the mass and simultaneous submission of applications for international protection.
60 However, it cannot be entirely excluded that, exceptionally, the submission, over a short period, of a considerable number of applications for international protection by beneficiaries of temporary protection will, in practice, make it objectively impossible for a Member State, in the light of the capacities of its system of temporary protection and despite all the reasonably conceivable measures to deal with such an influx, to examine all those applications in strict compliance with the time limits referred to in Article 31 of Directive 2013/32.
61 Although the existence of such an objective impossibility cannot, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 35 to 59 above, justify a generalised and automatic suspension of the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection, it may, on the other hand, lead the Member State concerned, in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives of Directive 2001/55 and to safeguard the rights of all applicants for international protection, to take measures such as the phased examination of those applications for international protection, where appropriate by setting priorities to that end.
62 Such measures could therefore, where appropriate, lead the competent authorities of a Member State to defer temporarily the examination of some of the applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection, without it being possible to ensure, systematically, that each of those applications can ultimately be examined in strict compliance with the time limits laid down in Article 31 of Directive 2013/32.
63 In a situation where such measures have been implemented by the competent authorities, it will be for the courts having jurisdiction, before which an action such as that at issue in the main proceedings is brought, to ensure that any failure to comply with those time limits, first, is not the result of a generalised and automatic suspension of the examination of the applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection and, second, results only from the measures necessary to deal with an objective impossibility of complying with those time limits, while avoiding inundating the international protection system of the Member State concerned.
64 It follows from all of the foregoing that Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55 and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted meaning that:
– the authorities of a Member State are precluded from automatically suspending the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection during the period of temporary protection, such that the time limit for adopting a decision on those applications for international protection does not begin or continue to run until after the expiry of that period;
– it is open to the competent authorities, in exceptional cases, to defer temporarily the examination of some of those applications for international protection, including by exceeding that decision-making period, provided that that period is exceeded as a result of measures adopted in order to deal with an objective impossibility of strictly complying with that decision-making period, while avoiding inundating the international protection system of the Member State concerned, and which are necessary for that purpose.
Costs
65 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 (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 17(2) 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, and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection
must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the authorities of a Member State are precluded from automatically suspending the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection during the period of temporary protection, such that the time limit for adopting a decision on those applications for international protection does not begin or continue to run until after the expiry of that period;
– it is open to the competent authorities, in exceptional cases, to defer temporarily the examination of some of those applications for international protection, including by exceeding that decision-making period, provided that that period is exceeded as a result of measures adopted in order to deal with an objective impossibility of strictly complying with that decision-making period, while avoiding inundating the international protection system of the Member State concerned, and which are necessary for that purpose.
[Signatures]