C-195/25

Provisional text OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL M. CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 11 September 2025 (1) Case C‑195/25 [Framholm] (i) AA, BA, CA, DA, EA, FA v Migrationsverket (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court, Göteborg, Migration Court, Sweden)) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons – Directive 2001/55/EC – Articles 2(a), 3(1), 17 and 19 – International protection – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 2 – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 10(2) – Grant of subsidiary protection status to persons benefiting from temporary protection – Limits ) 1.        The dispute giving rise to this reference for a preliminary ruling concerns whether displaced persons who have obtained temporary protection in a Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/55/EC (2) may apply in that Member State for the grant of subsidiary protection status under Directive 2011/95/EU (3) and Directive 2013/32/EU. (4) 2.        The Migrationsverket (Migration Agency, Sweden) (5) dismissed the applications for subsidiary protection lodged by six third-country nationals who, having been displaced from Ukraine following the invasion of that country in 2022, had obtained in Sweden the temporary protection provided for under Directive 2001/55. 3.        According to the Swedish authorities, beneficiaries of temporary protection may lodge an application for the grant of refugee status (asylum) at any time. However, the national authority will refuse any application they make for subsidiary protection status without examining the merits of that application. 4.        The referring court has doubts as to whether the national temporary protection scheme is compatible with the rules of EU law on eligibility for the benefits of international protection. I.      Legal framework A.      European Union law 1.      Directive 2001/55 5.        Article 1 states: ‘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.’ 6.        Article 2 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; … (e)      “refugees” means third-country nationals or stateless persons within the meaning of Article 1A of the Geneva Convention; …’ 7.        Article 3 provides: ‘1.      Temporary protection shall not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention. … 5.      This Directive shall not affect the prerogative of the Member States to adopt or retain more favourable conditions for persons covered by temporary protection’. 8.        In accordance with Article 5: ‘1.      The existence of a mass influx of displaced persons shall be established by a Council Decision adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, which shall also examine any request by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council. …’. 9.        Article 17 states: ‘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.’ 10.      Article 19 reads: ‘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.’ 2.      Directive 2011/95 11.      Article 1 (‘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.’ 12.      Article 2 (‘Definitions’) specifies: ‘For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: (a)      “international protection” means refugee status and subsidiary protection status as defined in points (e) and (g); (b)      “beneficiary of international protection” means a person who has been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status as defined in points (e) and (g); (c)      “Geneva Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967; (d)      “refugee” means a third-country national who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or a stateless person, who, being outside of the country of former habitual residence for the same reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it, and to whom Article 12 does not apply; (e)      “refugee status” means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a refugee; (f)      “person eligible for subsidiary protection” means a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) does not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; (g)      “subsidiary protection status” means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a person eligible for subsidiary protection; (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; … (m)      “residence permit” means any permit or authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State, in the form provided for under that State’s law, allowing a third-country national or stateless person to reside on its territory; …’. 13.      Article 18 (‘Granting of subsidiary protection status’) reads: ‘Member States shall grant subsidiary protection status to a third-country national or a stateless person eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Chapters II [(“Assessment of applications for international protection”)] and V [(“Qualification for subsidiary protection”)].’ 3.      Directive 2013/32 14.      Article 1 (‘Purpose’) provides: ‘The purpose of this Directive is to establish common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection pursuant to Directive 2011/95/EU.’ 15.      Article 2 (‘Definitions’) states: ‘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/EU, that can be applied for separately; … (g)      “refugee” means a third-country national or a stateless person who fulfils the requirements of Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU; (h)      “person eligible for subsidiary protection” means a third-country national or a stateless person who fulfils the requirements of Article 2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EU; (i)      “international protection” means refugee status and subsidiary protection status as defined in points (j) and (k); (j)      “refugee status” means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a refugee; (k)      “subsidiary protection status” means the recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a person eligible for subsidiary protection; …’. 16.      Article 10 (‘Requirements for the examination of applications’) provides: ‘… 2.      When examining applications for international protection, the determining authority shall first determine whether the applicants qualify as refugees and, if not, determine whether the applicants are eligible for subsidiary protection. …’. B.      Swedish law. Utlänningslagen (2005:716) (6) 17.      In accordance with Article 5 of Chapter 21: ‘The fact that a foreign national has been granted a residence permit affording temporary protection does not preclude the examination of an application for a residence permit as a refugee in accordance with Article 1 of Chapter 4. The same is true of an application for the grant of refugee status, in accordance with Article 3 of Chapter 4, and an application for a travel document, in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 4. The examination of an application under the foregoing paragraph may be postponed only if there are special reasons for doing so. If the application has not been examined before the temporary protection comes to an end, it must be examined as soon as possible after that date’. II.    Facts, dispute and questions referred for a preliminary ruling 18.      On 24 February 2022, AA, a third-country national holding a permanent residence permit in Ukraine, and BA and their four children, all Ukrainian nationals, fled Ukraine following the Russian invasion and made their way to Sweden, where they obtained a residence permit affording temporary protection in accordance with Directive 2001/55. They subsequently lodged applications for international protection in that same country. 19.      The Migration Agency examined the applications for international protection and decided, by two decisions of the same date: –        To refuse as unfounded the application for the grant of refugee status lodged by AA and to declare inadmissible AA’s application for the grant of subsidiary protection status. –        To refuse as unfounded the applications for the grant of refugee status lodged by BA and her children, and to refuse (7) her applications for the grant of subsidiary protection status. 20.      The applicants lodged an appeal against the decision of the Migration Agency before the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court, Göteborg, Migration Court, Sweden), seeking: –        Recognition of their refugee status and travel documents or recognition of their subsidiary protection status. –        An order referring the case back to the Migration Agency for an examination as to whether subsidiary protection should be granted. –        The submission to the Court of Justice of the European Union of a request for a preliminary ruling. 21.      It is in the above circumstances that the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court, Göteborg, Migration Court) has referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)      Are Directive [2011/95] and Directive [2013/32] applicable to applications for a grant of protection status following the granting of temporary protection under Directive [2001/55]? (2)      (a)      Must Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive [2001/55] be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of making an ‘application for asylum’ refers to the possibility of making an application for refugee status and of making an application for subsidiary protection status and of having such an application examined in the light of Directives [2011/95] and [2013/32]? (b)      Is Article 3(1) of Directive [2001/55] to be interpreted as meaning that temporary protection under that directive precludes the recognition of subsidiary protection status under Directive [2011/95] for persons eligible for or enjoying temporary protection under the first directive? (3)      If Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive [2001/55] also cover the right to apply for subsidiary protection status under Directive [2011/95], are those articles, in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive [2013/32], sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect? (4)      Is national legislation, such as the Swedish rules in Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals, which restricts the right to apply for a grant of refugee status or of alternative protection status so that it makes provision solely for applications for a grant of refugee status, compatible with EU law?’ III. Procedure before the Court of Justice 22.      The request for a preliminary ruling was registered at the Court of Justice on 11 March 2025. 23.      The Court decided to deal with the request for a preliminary ruling under the expedited procedure. 24.      Written observations have been lodged by the appellants in the main proceedings, the Migration Agency, the Swedish Government and the European Commission. All of those mentioned, as well as the Bulgarian Government, attended the hearing held on 10 July 2025. IV.    Assessment A.      Preliminary observations 1.      Conceptual and terminological clarifications 25.      Some of the difficulties posed by this reference for a preliminary ruling stem from the coexistence of ‘protection’ regimes with similar names. It is therefore necessary to clarify the meaning for the purposes of EU law of international protection, refugee status, subsidiary protection and temporary protection. 26.      Article 78 TFEU provides that the Union ‘shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection’ (paragraph 1). 27.      According to Article 78(2) TFEU, measures for a common European system include a) a uniform status of asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union; b) a uniform status of subsidiary protection for nationals of third countries who, without obtaining European asylum, are in need of international protection; and c) a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons in the event of a massive inflow. 28.      Article 78(3) TFEU provides for the eventuality of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries. In that event, the Council may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member States concerned. (8) 29.      The definition of international protection contained in Article 2(a) and (h) of Directive 2011/95 includes refugee status (asylum in the strict sense) and subsidiary protection status. (9) A person may be a beneficiary of international protection because he or she has been granted either refugee status or subsidiary protection status. 30.      The case-law of the Court of Justice is consistent with that assertion when it states that ‘… Directive 2011/95, in connection with the concept of “international protection”, refers to two separate systems of protection, namely the system governing refugee status and the system relating to subsidiary protection status’. (10) 31.      Under that regime, the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (11) is relevant solely in relation to the conditions of eligibility for refugee status. (12) The system laid down by that convention ‘applies only to refugees and not to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status’, (13) which, ‘as is apparent from recitals 6 and 33 of Directive 2011/95, … is intended to be complementary … to the protection of refugees enshrined in [that] [c]onvention’. (14) 32.      Within the framework of that complementary function, (15) the Court of Justice treats subsidiary protection, which was introduced into secondary law by Directive 2004/83/EC, (16) later replaced by Directive 2011/95, (17) as a concept in its own right. 33.      Finally, EU law also includes a common system for granting temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons, which has its own specific features and to which I shall turn below. (18) Member States may, for their part, establish or maintain more favourable conditions for persons benefiting from temporary protection. 2.      System of temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 and persons displaced following the invasion of Ukraine 34.      Directive 2001/55 established ‘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’ (Article 1). (19) 35.      That system includes ‘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’. (20) 36.      In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/55, ‘the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons shall be established by a Council Decision adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission’. 37.      By Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, (21) the Council activated the temporary protection scheme. For those purposes: –        It established ‘the existence of a mass influx into the Union of displaced persons who have had to leave Ukraine as a consequence of an armed conflict’. (22) –        It introduced temporary protection for certain groups of displaced persons from Ukraine with effect from the date of the invasion. (23) 38.      The temporary protection introduced by Implementing Decision 2022/382 is in force now (24) and the appellants relied on it in the main proceedings. 3.      Delineation of the dispute 39.      The Migration Agency refused the appellants’ applications on the basis of the following arguments: –        The applicants held a residence permit affording temporary protection in Sweden in accordance with Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals. –        That chapter, in conjunction with Directive 2001/55, introduces a special regime the application of which takes precedence over applications for the grant of refugee status and subsidiary protection status. –        Article 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals precludes the examination of an application for the grant of subsidiary protection status lodged by a foreign national enjoying temporary protection. –        Since there is no scope for the Swedish legislation to be interpreted, in accordance with EU law, in such a way as to allow the assessment of such applications, there is no entitlement to an examination of [eligibility for] subsidiary protection status while temporary protection is in place. (25) 40.      The referring court has doubts as to whether the criterion applied by the Migration Agency is compatible with EU law. By its four questions, it seeks an interpretation of Directives 2001/55, 2011/95 and 2013/32 (first, second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together) and asks about the compatibility of the Law on Foreign Nationals with EU law (fourth question). B.      First, second and third questions referred for a preliminary ruling 41.      The referring court wishes to ascertain, in essence, whether, once temporary protection has been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/55, Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 apply to applications for the grant of refugee status or subsidiary protection status. 42.      In particular, the referring court’s questions are confined to ascertaining whether Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive 2001/55 apply to applications for subsidiary protection. 43.      I should say here and now that, in my view, which I share with the appellants, the Commission and the referring court itself, granting temporary protection to a person (in accordance with Directive 2001/55) is not incompatible with the act by that person of applying for the grant of refugee status or subsidiary protection status. 44.      So far as concerns refugee status, Directive 2001/55 leaves no margin for doubt. According to Article 3(1), ‘temporary protection shall not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention’. 45.      The problem arises in connection with subsidiary protection status. When Directive 2001/55 was adopted, EU law did not yet provide for subsidiary protection, which, as I have said, was introduced under Directive 2004/83. (26) 46.      Directive 2001/55 was not brought into line with the new legislation and, in its provisions, confines its references to ‘refugee status’ and ‘asylum’: –        According to Article 3(1) thereof, ‘[t]emporary protection shall not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention’. –        In Chapter IV, entitled ‘Access to the asylum procedure in the context of temporary protection’, Article 17(1) provides that persons enjoying temporary protection must be able to lodge an ‘application for asylum’ at any time. 47.      If interpreted in isolation, Article 17(1) of Directive 2001/55 might suggest that beneficiaries of temporary protection are entitled to apply only for refugee (asylum) status but not for subsidiary protection status. If that were the case, Member States could exclude a person from the grant of subsidiary protection status on the ground that Directive 2001/55 does not mention it. 48.      The Swedish Government submits, along the same lines, that the mention of ‘other kind[s] of protection’ in Article 19(2) of Directive 2001/55, is a reference not to subsidiary protection but to cases in which Member States exercise the right to apply more favourable measures to beneficiaries of temporary protection under Article 3(5) of that directive. (27) 49.      In my opinion, however, that proposition is incorrect. 50.      A restrictive understanding of the term ‘asylum’ in Article 17(1) of Directive 2001/55 would fail to take into account the context in which that directive applies following the entry into force of the FEU Treaty, as well as the objectives and scope of the legislation concerning ‘international protection’ which has been adopted in the intervening period. 51.      From that point of view, Article 17 of Directive 2001/55 must be interpreted as meaning that persons benefiting from temporary protection have the right to draw up and lodge an application for international protection at any time. 52.      With regard to this assessment I agree with the criteria put forward by the Commission in its guidelines on Implementing Decision 2022/382 (28) and with the view of the referring court, for which the expression ‘application for asylum’ is synonymous with ‘application for international protection’ as defined in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. (29) 53.      Although Directive 2001/55 was adopted before the FEU Treaty entered into force, its legal basis now is Article 78 of that treaty, in accordance with which that secondary legislation must be interpreted. 54.      Article 78(2) TFEU provides for a uniform status of subsidiary protection and a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons in the event of a massive inflow. It cannot be the case that that system of temporary protection caters only for refugee status and is unrelated to subsidiary protection status when these are both constituent elements of the concept of ‘international protection’. 55.      The Court of Justice: –        Has highlighted that, where a person meets the minimum conditions set by EU law to qualify for either refugee status or subsidiary protection status, Member States must grant the status sought to that person, subject to the grounds for exclusion provided for. (30) –        Has also held that ‘… the subsidiary protection status referred to in … [D]irective [2011/95] must, in principle, be granted to a third-country national or stateless person who faces a real risk of suffering serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of that directive, if returned to his country of origin or to the country of his former habitual residence’. (31) 56.      As a general rule, therefore, compliance with the rules of EU law governing qualification for subsidiary protection status requires Member States to examine the corresponding application and, if appropriate, to grant it, unless the grounds for exclusion provided for in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 themselves, to which I shall refer at length, are present. 57.      That duty on the part of the Member States carries with it, as its counterpart, the implication that the rules governing international protection, in their entirety, clearly, precisely and unconditionally confer individual rights on beneficiaries. 58.      Although the third question referred for a preliminary refers to the direct effect of Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive 2001/55, the direct effect attaches rather, in my opinion, to the first of those provisions in conjunction with the rules of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 that specifically relate to the right to lodge an application for international protection. 1.      Subsidiary protection and temporary protection 59.      Now that we have established that premiss and defined the relationship between refugee status and subsidiary protection status as constituent elements of the generic concept of ‘international protection’, it is necessary to determine how those two statuses interact with the temporary protection provided for in Directive 2001/55. 60.      The Court of Justice addressed this issue in the judgment in Kaduna, (32) from which the following guidelines may be drawn: –        Temporary protection is linked to the system of international protection in its entirety (refugee status and subsidiary protection), since, ‘as regards … the safeguarding of the objectives and effectiveness of Directive 2001/55, it is apparent from Article 2(a) of that directive that the purpose of the temporary protection mechanism is, inter alia, to maintain the efficient operation of the international protection system in the Member States’. (33) –        In the light of Articles 3 and 17 thereof, Directive 2001/55 ‘safeguards, in particular, the effective possibility for third-country nationals and stateless persons benefiting from temporary protection of obtaining international protection following an appropriate examination of their individual situation’. (34) –        Persons benefiting from temporary protection immediately enjoy a guarantee of protection of more limited scope than that arising from the grant of international protection within the meaning of Directive 2011/95. (35) –        ‘It would … be contrary [to the objective of effective qualification for international protection] and to the effectiveness of Directive 2001/55 for the examination of the applications for international protection made, where applicable, by … third-country nationals and stateless persons, and on which a final decision has not yet been taken, not to be completed in strict compliance with the requirements arising from Directive 2013/32 following the expiry of the … temporary protection’. (36) 61.      Thus, for the Court of Justice, third-country nationals or stateless persons benefiting from temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 enjoy the right to seek international protection (in the form of its two constituent variants of refugee status and subsidiary protection status). 62.      Paragraph 129 of the judgment in Kaduna contains a statement which, in the absence of subsequent qualifications, would appear to make the right to apply for international protection conditional upon when the temporary protection comes to an end. That paragraph reads: ‘… once the temporary protection has ended, those third-country nationals and stateless persons cannot be prevented from effectively exercising their right to make an application for international protection, which is an essential step in the procedure for granting international protection’. 63.      However, given the context in which it arises, paragraph 129 of the judgment in Kaduna, far from restricting the rights of the persons concerned, emphasises the extent of their right to apply for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, during the temporary protection or once it has ended. 64.      If my reading of the judgment in Kaduna is correct, this means that it is feasible for an individual to make an application for international protection while already enjoying temporary protection. 65.      That view is confirmed by the judgment in Kaduna when it rejects the proposition that the residence in a Member State of persons benefiting from temporary protection automatically becomes illegal from the date on which that protection is terminated. It recognises that ‘some of those persons may, in particular, have submitted an application for international protection and have, in principle, on that basis, a right to remain in the Member State concerned’. (37) 66.      In short, beneficiaries of temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 may apply for international protection, in its two forms, at any time. 67.      That rule is not precluded by Article 3(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU, (38) which excludes from its application cases in which the provisions of Directive 2001/55 have been applied. (39) That exclusion is open to the interpretation, by converse inference, that the absence of such a provision in Directive 2013/32 means that that directive applies in cases of temporary protection under Directive 2001/55. 68.      An analysis of the material fields covered by Directive 2001/55 and Directive 2013/33 with respect to the reception of applicants for international protection confirms the foregoing: –        Directive 2013/33, which supplements Directive 2011/95 and Directive 2013/32, deals with the individual situations of applicants for international protection by providing them with ‘reception conditions’ [defined in Article 2(f) of Directive 2013/33] while their applications are being processed. Directive 2001/55, on the other hand, deals with situations involving the mass influx of displaced persons. –        The difference in the designation of the beneficiary does not preclude the possibility of overlaps: someone caught up in a mass displacement as result of a war may meet the conditions of eligibility for one of the forms of international protection. –        What matters is that the equivalence between the content and scope of the protection provided for in Directive 2001/55 and the reception conditions under Directive 2013/33 makes it logical that the latter should provide for its non-applicability in cases where another support system is already in place. 69.      That same logic explains why Article 19(1) of Directive 2001/55 allows Member States not to grant the benefit of temporary protection concurrently with the status of asylum applicant while applications are under consideration. 2.      Limitations on the grant of international protection 70.      Member States are obliged to grant international protection to anyone who meets the necessary conditions, subject to the grounds for exclusion provided for in Directive 2011/95. 71.      Articles 12 and 17 of Directive 2011/95 list the grounds for excluding the grant of refugee status and subsidiary protection status respectively. None of them mentions the fact of being a beneficiary of temporary protection. 72.      The exhaustive list (40) of grounds for the inadmissibility of an application for international protection that is contained in Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32 likewise does not refer to the fact of being a beneficiary of temporary protection. (41) 73.      However, Directive 2001/55 grants Member States certain powers to limit access to international protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons. It takes into account for those purposes the impact that such a phenomenon might have on the national asylum system. When defining temporary protection, Article 2(a) thereof mentions the possibility that the influx of displaced persons may bring with it ‘… a risk that the asylum system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient operation …’. 74.      The concern not to bring national asylum systems to a standstill when laying down rules governing temporary protection for persons displaced by the invasion of Ukraine was highlighted in Implementing Decision 2022/382 and in its subsequent extensions. It is reflected in recital 16 of Implementing Decision 2022/382, (42) recital 7 of Implementing Decision 2023/2409 (43) and recitals 7 and 8 of Implementing Decision 2024/1836. (44) 75.      Member States therefore have some discretion in calibrating the pace of processing applications for international protection so as to ensure that their national asylum systems do not reach saturation point. (45) 76.      By decision of the EU legislature, that risk of saturation may justify temporary limitations on the right of access to international protection enjoyed by beneficiaries of temporary protection. In such circumstances, the response must be tailored to the actual capacity to deal with an exceptional situation brought about by the mass exodus of displaced persons. 77.      Directive 2001/55 thus forms part of the common system for the examination of applications for international protection, which already provides for the possibility of postponing the decision on such an application 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’ [point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32]. (46) 78.      To my mind, however, those temporary limitations cannot lead to a declaration as to the inadmissibility of any application for subsidiary protection. (47) The common system of international protection does not allow a national provision to make it a general rule that all applications for subsidiary protection made by persons enjoying temporary protection must be declared inadmissible. 79.      For its part, Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (48) refers to situations characterised by the arrival of an unusually high number of third-country nationals seeking international protection. (49) Article 33 thereof establishes ‘a mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management designed to implement preventive action plans in order, inter alia, to prevent the application of that regulation being jeopardised due to a substantiated risk of particular pressure being placed on a Member State’s asylum system’. (50) 80.      In these cases too, however, the EU legislature did not authorise Member States to decide on their own initiative that applications for international protection are to be declared automatically inadmissible. 3.      Interim conclusion 81.      In short, my suggested answer to the first three questions referred to a preliminary ruling is as follows: –        An interpretation of Directive 2001/55 in the light of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 authorises third-country nationals or stateless persons enjoying temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 to apply for international protection in the form of its two constituent variants of refugee status and subsidiary protection status. –        Article 17(1) of Directive 2001/55, Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 10 of Directive 2013/32 have direct effect in so far as they recognise the right of third-country nationals or stateless persons to lodge an application for international protection. C.      Fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling 82.      In the light of my proposed answer to the first three questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the Law on Foreign Nationals would be incompatible with EU law if it prohibited beneficiaries of temporary protection outright from applying for subsidiary protection. 83.      It is for the referring court to interpret national law. Subject to its assessment of that law, I take the view that Article 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals might conceivably be interpreted in such a way, compatible with EU law, as to mean that it applies to applications for subsidiary protection, by analogy, the same examination regime as to applications for the grant of refugee status, on the basis that they are both applications for international protection. (51) 84.      If the referring court did not consider such an interpretation to be viable (because contra legem), it would have to disapply the provisions of the Law on Foreign Nationals that govern the matter at issue here. 85.      The observations of the Swedish Government and the Migration Agency emphasize the objective of protecting the national asylum system. They argue that, since temporary protection is an exceptional mechanism, that objective would be compromised if Sweden were compelled to examine applications for subsidiary protection during the period of temporary protection. (52) 86.      That argument could be relied on, if appropriate (if the system were shown to be at risk of coming to a standstill), to delay decisions given, following a substantive examination, in response to applications for international protection or to activate the mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management in asylum matters, but not to justify the inadmissibility of those applications where they include an application for subsidiary protection status. 87.      The Swedish Government and the Migration Agency attempt to justify the limiting of examinations to applications for the grant of refugee status by reference to respect for the international obligations incumbent on the Swedish State under the Geneva Convention. (53) 88.      The latter argument cannot be endorsed either. It is true that Article 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals is compliant with the Geneva Convention and with EU law in allowing beneficiaries of temporary protection to apply for the grant of refugee status. Sweden thus respects its ‘international obligations’ but it infringes EU law if it denies those beneficiaries the possibility of applying for subsidiary protection, which falls outside the scope of the Geneva Convention but is required by Article 78 TFEU and by Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. V.      Conclusion 89.      In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the answer to the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court, Göteborg, Migration Court, Sweden) should be as follows: Articles 3, 17 and 19 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, in conjunction with Articles 1, 2(a), (f), (g) and (h) and 18 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 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, and in conjunction Articles 2(b), (h), (i) and (k) and 10(2) 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 third-country nationals or stateless persons enjoying temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 may apply for international protection in the form of its two constituent variants of refugee status and subsidiary protection status, in accordance with Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. Article 17(1) of Directive 2001/55, Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 10 of Directive 2013/32 have direct effect in so far as they recognise the right of third-country nationals or stateless persons to lodge an application for international protection. Those provisions preclude legislation or a consistent administrative practice of a Member State whereby applications for subsidiary protection status lodged by displaced persons benefiting from temporary protection are refused without an analysis of whether the conditions of eligibility for that status are met. 1      Original language: Spanish. i      The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 2      Council Directive 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). 3      Directive 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). 4      Directive 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). 5      The Migration Agency is the authority responsible for granting residence permits by virtue of temporary protection, as well as for examining applications for asylum and subsidiary protection. 6      Law on Foreign Nationals No 716 of 2005 (‘the Law on Foreign Nationals’). 7      At the hearing, the question was raised as to whether Swedish law uses the term ‘inadmissibility’ or ‘refusal’. The Migration Agency recognised that it rejects applications for subsidiary protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection without examining the merits of such applications, that is to say without considering whether or not the applicants fulfil the conditions of eligibility for such protection. It also recognised that those decisions are in fact equivalent to declarations as to the inadmissibility of applications for subsidiary protection. It went on to say that, in cases such as this, the persons concerned may lodge a second application for subsidiary protection which will be examined when the temporary protection has come to an end and on the basis of the conditions existing at that time. 8      On the nature of such provisional measures and their relationship with the regime under Directive 2001/55, see the judgment of 6 September 2017, Slovakia and Hungary v Council (C‑643/15 and C‑647/15, EU:C:2017:631, paragraphs 256 and 257). 9      In paragraphs 8 to 10 of its written observations and at the hearing, the Commission maintained that the priority when examining applications for international protection is to analyse whether the conditions of eligibility for refugee status are met. It is only if those conditions are not met that the option of examining the conditions corresponding to subsidiary protection status becomes available. For the purposes of this dispute (in which the applications covered both statuses), there is in my opinion no need to determine whether an applicant, knowing that he or she stands no chance of qualifying for refugee status, may proceed directly to requesting subsidiary protection. 10      Judgment of 13 September 2018, Ahmed (C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 38). 11      Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967. 12      Judgment of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso (C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraph 28): ‘it is clear from recitals 4, 23 and 24 of Directive 2011/95 that the Geneva Convention constitutes the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees and that the provisions of the directive for determining who qualifies for refugee status and the content of that status were adopted to guide the competent authorities of the Member States in the application of that convention on the basis of common concepts and criteria’. 13      Judgment of 13 September 2018, Ahmed (C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 42). 14      Judgments of 13 September 2018, Ahmed (C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 39), of 30 January 2014, Diakité (C‑285/12, EU:C:2014:39, paragraph 33); and of 8 May 2014, N. (C‑604/12, EU:C:2014:302, paragraph 31). 15      This complementarity is referenced in recital 33 of Directive 2011/95: ‘Subsidiary protection should be complementary and additional to the refugee protection enshrined in the Geneva Convention’. 16      Council Directive of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12). The legal basis for subsidiary protection was not explicit in the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Although the preamble to Directive 2004/83 refers to that treaty, ‘and in particular points 1(c), 2(a) and 3(a) of Article 63 thereof’, the rules governing subsidiary protection derive from the ‘Tampere Conclusions’, that is to say the special meeting held by the European Council at Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999. 17      When transposing into Swedish law the concepts of ‘subsidiärt skyddsbehövande’ (subsidiary protection) and ‘status som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande’ (subsidiary protection status) contained in Directive 2004/83, the Swedish legislature used the terms ‘alternativt skyddsbehövande’ (alternative protection) and ‘alternativ skyddsstatusförklaring’ (alternative protection status), respectively. I shall nonetheless, when referring to the Swedish legislation, use the expression ‘subsidiary protection’, in line with the terminology employed in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. 18      The legal basis for temporary protection was specified in Article 63(2)(a) of the EC Treaty. 19      See, on the history of Directive 2001/55, the Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour in the joined cases in Kaduna (C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:911, point 6). 20      Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/55. 21      Council Implementing Decision of 4 March 2022 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection (OJ 2022 L 71, p. 1). 22      Implementing Decision 2022/382 was adopted in light of the fact that, ‘[o]n 24 February 2022, Russian armed forces launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine at multiple locations from the Russian Federation, from Belarus and from non-government-controlled areas of Ukraine’, and that, ‘[a]s a result, substantial areas of Ukrainian territory now constitute areas of armed conflict from which thousands of persons have fled or are fleeing’. 23      Implementing Decision 2022/382 provides for two types of beneficiary: a) persons enjoying mandatory protection under the Implementing Decision itself; and b) persons enjoying ‘optional’ protection because they are covered by the national law of each Member State. 24      Implementing Decision 2022/382 applied for an initial period of one year up to 4 March 2023, which was subsequently extended until 4 March 2024. The Council decided to extend the period of temporary protection by means of Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2409 of 19 October 2023 extending temporary protection as introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 (OJ L, 2023/2409) until 4 March 2025. That period has been extended again, until 4 March 2026, by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1836 of 25 June 2024 extending temporary protection as introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 (OJ L, 2024/1836). At the hearing, the Commission mentioned a proposal of 4 June 2025 urging the Commission to approve a further extension to 4 March 2027. 25      As I have already stated, the Migration Agency wishes to defer examination of applications for subsidiary protection until such time as the temporary protection has come to an end, and on the basis of new applications. By then, however, there may no longer be any need for protection if the war in Ukraine has ended. 26      According to Article 40 of Directive 2011/95, Directive 2004/83 was repealed for the Member States bound by it with effect from 21 December 2013. 27      Paragraph 14 of the written observations of the Swedish Government. 28      See paragraph 7 of the Communication from the Commission on Operational guidelines for the implementation of Council Implementing Decision 2022/382 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection 2022/C 126 I/01 (OJ 2022 C 126 I, p. 1). 29      It expresses this view in the order for reference, in the part relating to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling. 30      Judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov (C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 50): ‘… where a person meets the minimum standards set by EU law to qualify for one of those statuses because he or she fulfils the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III [refugee] or Chapters II and V [beneficiary of subsidiary protection] of Directive 2011/95 respectively, Member States are required, subject to the grounds for exclusion provided for by that directive, to grant the international protection status sought, since those Member States have no discretion in that respect’. 31      Judgment of 23 May 2019, Bilali (C‑720/17, EU:C:2019:448, paragraph 36), citing the judgment of 4 October 2018, Ahmedbekova (C‑652/16, EU:C:2018:801, paragraph 47). 32      Judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna (C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038); ‘the judgment in Kaduna’. 33      Ibidem, paragraph 125. 34      Ibidem, paragraphs 126 and 127. 35      Ibidem, paragraph 127 in conjunction with paragraph 89. At the hearing, the Swedish Government recognised that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status qualify for a higher level of (social and other) benefits than beneficiaries of temporary protection. The Migration Agency stated that, although this was the case, it considered the lower level to be adequate for the latter. 36      Ibidem, paragraph 128. 37      Ibidem, paragraph 154. 38      Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96). According to Article 3(3) thereof, ‘this Directive shall not apply when the provisions of … Directive 2001/55 … are applied’. Article 3(3) of the predecessor to that Directive, Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18), says the same. 39      Cited in the written observations of the Migration Agency. 40      On its exhaustive nature, see the judgment of 19 March 2020, Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Tompa) (C‑564/18, EU:C:2020:218, paragraph 30). 41      In accordance with paragraph 51 of the judgment of 1 August 2022, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Child of refugees who was born outside the host State) (C‑720/20, EU:C:2022:603), ‘it follows both from the exhaustiveness of the list in Article 33(2) of the Procedures Directive [2013/32] and from the fact that the grounds of inadmissibility set out in that list are exemptions that [that provision] must be interpreted strictly and cannot therefore be applied to a situation which does not correspond to its wording’. 42      ‘Introducing temporary protection is also expected to benefit the Member States, as the rights accompanying temporary protection limit the need for displaced persons to immediately seek international protection and thus the risk of overwhelming their asylum systems’. My emphasis. 43      ‘Extending temporary protection will also help to ensure that the asylum systems of the Member States are not overwhelmed by a significant increase in the number of applications for international protection that could be lodged by persons that benefit from temporary protection until 4 March 2024, if temporary protection were to cease by then or by persons fleeing the war in Ukraine that arrive in the Union after that date and before 4 March 2025’. 44      There is perceived to be ‘a risk to the efficient operation of the national asylum systems; … if temporary protection were soon to cease, all the beneficiaries would apply for international protection at the same time’. 45      The request for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑249/25 (case pending before the Court of Justice) raises the question whether Member States may suspend the examination of an application for international protection lodged by a person enjoying temporary protection. In the present reference for a preliminary ruling, on the other hand, the Swedish authorities did not suspend that examination but simply refused an application for the grant of subsidiary protection status, on the basis set out above. In answer to a question put to it at the hearing, concerning whether suspending the time limit for making a decision would be more in keeping with the principle of proportionality than the inadmissibility of applications for subsidiary protection, the Swedish Government stated that this was a matter for the Migration Agency in its capacity as an independent authority and that it was not for the government to assess how the legislation was being applied. 46      Judgment of 8 May 2025, Zimir (C‑662/23, EU:C:2025:326, paragraph 32). 47      In the sense I referred to in footnote 7 to this Opinion. 48      Regulation of the 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 Dublin III Regulation’). 49      Judgment of 26 July 2017, Jafari (C‑646/16, EU:C:2017:586, paragraph 96). 50      Ibidem, paragraph 95. 51      The first paragraph of Article 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals refers to the compatibility of the grant of a residence permit to a beneficiary of temporary protection with the examination of an application for a residence permit as a refugee. According to the second paragraph thereof, ‘the examination of an application under the first paragraph may be postponed only if there are special reasons for doing so’. 52      Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the observations of the Swedish Government and several (unnumbered) paragraphs of the observations of the Migration Agency. At the hearing, both the Swedish Government and the Migration Agency referred to potential risks to Sweden’s asylum system, but did not specify which objective elements might jeopardise that system in such a way as to make it essential to refuse automatically and without prior examination applications for subsidiary protection status lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection. 53      Paragraph 13 of the observations of the Swedish Government and an (unnumbered) paragraph of the observations of the Migration Agency.