Member States must strengthen the protection of all who flee Ukraine, instead of excluding thousands

The latest proposal by the European Commission to extend temporary protection further provides safety for 4.4 million people, but risks leaving others behind. The undersigned organizations call on Member States not to agree on the proposal to exclude those with exit restrictions from temporary protection; to ensure unimpeded access to international protection assessments to those who apply; to stop rolling back material and financial support to temporary protection beneficiaries; and to double down on developing coordinated transitions out of temporary protection that leave no one undocumented.  

The proposal by the European Commission to extend the Temporary Protection regime until March 2028 acknowledges an important reality: the conditions that led to the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) in 2022 have not fundamentally changed. Ukraine continues to face widespread attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, persistent insecurity across large parts of the country, ongoing forced displacement, and significant humanitarian needs. Safe, voluntary and sustainable return cannot yet be assumed for millions of people displaced from Ukraine.

The proposed extension therefore provides welcome protection for at least one more year for the nearly 4.4 million people currently benefiting from temporary protection across the European Union. Many of the displaced have now established lives in the Union, with children enrolled in schools, adults employed, and families contributing economically and socially to their local communities. The proposal rightly emphasises that this additional year should be used by Member States to prepare for a coordinated transition out of temporary protection, in line with the Council Recommendation adopted in 2025. That transition should include pathways to longer-term residence, alongside opportunities for voluntary, safe and sustainable return to Ukraine when conditions allow.

However, the Commission’s proposal and the current status quo in the Union also raise serious concerns that must be addressed.

1. The proposal to exclude persons who are subject to Ukrainian exit restrictions going forward is particularly concerning.

The Commission proposes to exclude from temporary protection new applicants who are unable to demonstrate their authorisation to leave Ukraine in accordance with Ukrainian law, and  reflects recent discussions among Member States to exclude such persons in order to “reconcile temporary protection with Ukraine’s overall ability to defend itself.”

This step represents a fundamental departure from the legal nature and spirit of the Temporary Protection Directive as a collective protection instrument and raises serious legal and practical concerns, while calling into question its future direction. 

Legal and practical challenges

First, while the Commission states that this exclusion provision deserves careful scrutiny, it provides only limited analysis of whether the measure satisfies the requirements of necessity and proportionality. It does not explain why denying access to temporary protection constitutes the least restrictive means of pursuing the stated objective of Ukraine’s self-defense, nor does it assess the potential discriminatory effects of the proposed criterion.   

Second, the Commission’s proposal does not alter the scope of the original implementing decision leading to temporary protection. Rather, it introduces an exclusion ground which is not foreseen by the directive itself. The directive provides an exhaustive list of exclusion grounds in Article 28. Failure to comply with authorisation to leave and/or military obligations are not among them. By introducing a new exclusion criterion through a Council decision, the proposal raises important questions about its legal basis and whether such decision can lawfully modify the substantive scope of protection established by the TPD.

Third, although formally framed as a neutral criterion based on documentation rather than gender or age, the proposal will have a disproportionate impact on men of the age 23 to 60 who are not allowed to leave Ukraine, including those of current conscription age (25 to 60 years old), effectively creating differential access to temporary protection on the basis of protected characteristics, and is therefore discriminatory.

Fourth, the proposal effectively shifts part of the responsibility for determining eligibility for EU temporary protection to the authorities of the country of origin by requiring confirmation that Ukraine authorised an individual to leave its territory. This represents a fundamental departure from the rationale of the TPD to limit administrative burden both on individuals and authorities and raises significant legal and practical challenges for implementation.

Fifth, the verification mechanism raises important legal and procedural concerns. The proposed burden of proof lies with the applicant and no sufficient clarity is provided regarding the availability and accessibility of evidence, as it mainly relies on documentation that is not currently available, the authentication of documents, interoperability of digital verification systems, compliance with data protection requirements, and the treatment of applicants who are unable to obtain the required documentation for reasons beyond their control. While the Commission refers to a future functionality of the Reserv+ application as a possible means of verification, this feature has neither been developed nor operationalized yet. It therefore remains unclear what evidence applicants would be expected to provide in practice in the meantime, or should there be any issues with functioning of Reserv+. Ukrainian laws also include several reasons why men of conscription age can travel internationally, making it unclear how compliance could be verified through an individualised assessment in each case.

Sixth, the potential exclusion of certain categories of people has significant implications on national administrative processes. While the systems to assess eligibility for temporary protection have been build, tried and tested, a narrowing of scope requires important changes to established ways or working as the eligibility assessment is not straight forward. In addition, it should be considered that the availability of remedies to challenge negative temporary protection decisions will likely result in an increased burden of Member States’ judicial systems.  

Persistent protection needs

The rationale for excluding people subject to exit restrictions is not self-evident from a protection perspective either. Differential treatment based solely on changing Ukrainian exit regulations also raises questions regarding equal treatment, legal certainty and proportionality. Eligibility for EU protection should primarily depend on protection needs rather than administrative rules governing exit from the country of origin.

The fact that a person is not authorised under Ukrainian law to leave the country does not necessarily determine whether they have protection needs under international or European law. Indeed, some may have independent claims to refugee status or subsidiary protection, as also noted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

Anyone fleeing Ukraine must retain a genuine and effective opportunity, both in law and in practice, to apply for international protection before any return or removal measures are taken. The EU and its Member States must uphold the right to asylum, guaranteed under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The fact that a group of people who will continue to arrive in Europe will be excluded from temporary protection will have implications for asylum and migration systems in Europe. At a time where EU Member States are launching new procedures in line with the Pact on Migration and Asylum and focusing on ensuring that the procedural safeguards that guarantee access to asylum and a fair asylum procedure are in place, any actions that will increase pressure on asylum and migration systems should be carefully considered. 

The exclusion will likely mean that certain groups – mainly Ukrainian men – fleeing in the future are more likely to become undocumented, which will ultimately prove counterproductive both for Ukraine and the EU. Policies that create insecurity and irregularity within the EU create human suffering, and are unlikely to facilitate voluntary, sustainable and well-prepared return in the future. They may instead undermine trust, complicate long-term planning for displaced persons and Member States alike, and weaken prospects for successful recovery when conditions eventually permit return.

Finally, introducing a new exclusion also risks normalising the idea that Temporary Protection can be progressively restricted on the basis of considerations other than protection needs.

2. The proposal comes amid a broader rollback of support for beneficiaries of temporary protection

Across several Member States, governments have begun reducing the level of protection and assistance available to displaced Ukrainians. Housing support has been scaled-back, health care has been significantly reduced, financial assistance has been curtailed, and access to reception facilities has become more restrictive.

These changes often occur without adequate safeguards and risk creating significant disparities in protection across the Union, as well as increasing uncertainty for beneficiaries who continue to rely on temporary protection because return remains unsafe.

Against this backdrop, introducing new exclusions from Temporary Protection sends a troubling signal. Rather than reinforcing a common European commitment to protection for those displaced by the war, it risks marking the beginning of a gradual narrowing of the Directive’s personal scope.

Instead of rolling back support, Member States must ensure support is given in line with the Directive and based on people’s needs, as this will best serve both integration in the local community and return to Ukraine, when wished and possible.

3. Too many Member States still lack robust exit strategies despite Commission and Council guidance

Despite the Commission’s and Council’s 2025 recommendations to develop a coherent, coordinated transition out of temporary protection in order to avoid people becoming undocumented, few Member States have taken concrete steps this past year. While a handful of countries have developed ways forward, including Poland, Czechia, Ireland and Italy, in most countries such planning remains absent or underdeveloped. 

And, importantly, concerns remain with some of the approaches. Civil society has, for example, highlighted that the schemes in Czechia and Sweden risk excluding vulnerable groups, e.g. those who cannot work (sufficiently) to meet income requirements.

Without coherent national strategies, each extension merely delays rather than resolves fundamental needs for clarity, predictability and long-term safety. It creates uncertainty both for displaced Ukrainians and for the national administrations responsible for implementing future transitions. Where strategies are adopted, they should aim to leave no one behind and prevent that beneficiaries become undocumented, as asked by the Commission and the Council.

Looking ahead

Extending Temporary Protection until March 2028 represents an important recognition that displacement from Ukraine remains ongoing and that large-scale return is not yet feasible.

However, extensions should not become the vehicle for progressively narrowing protection through new exclusions or reducing support while postponing difficult decisions about the future transition out of temporary protection.

Instead, the coming years should be used to strengthen the protection framework. Temporary protection has rightly been regarded as one of the European Union’s most successful responses to forced displacement. Preserving that achievement requires upholding the established principles, resisting incremental erosion of its scope and ensuring that future reforms remain guided by legal certainty, solidarity and respect for fundamental rights.

SIGNATORIES

Organisations can sign up here.

International organisations: 

1. Danish Refugee Council
2. European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)
3. HIAS Europe
4. International Rescue Committee (IRC)
5. La Strada International
6. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)

National organisations: 

1. aditus Foundation (Malta)
2. America, España, Solidaridad Y Cooperación (AESCO) (Spain)
3. Asociación Rumiñahui (Spain)
4. Association for Integration and Migration (SIMI) (Czech Republic)
5. ASTI asbl (Luxembourg)
6. Center for legal aid – Voice in Bulgaria (Bulgaria)
7. Finnish Refugee Advice Centre (Finland)
8. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) (Greece)
9. Migrants’ Rights Network (UK)
10. Red Acoge (Spain)
11. Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes (SJM) (Spain)