Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

20 November 2025 ( * )

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Area of freedom, security and justice – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2001/55/EC – Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons – Articles 17 and 19 – Concept of ‘application for asylum’ – Article 3(1) – Grant of subsidiary protection status to a person enjoying temporary protection – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 18 – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 33(2) – Direct effect )

In Case C‑195/25 [Framholm ( i ),

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court for Immigration Matters, Gothenburg, Sweden), made by decision of 11 March 2025, received at the Court on 11 March 2025, in the proceedings

AA,

BA,

CA,

DA,

EA,

FA

v

Migrationsverket,

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: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 July 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– AA, BA, CA, DA, EA and FA, by E. Nygren, jurist,

– Migrationsverket, by C. Bexelius and J.M. Edlund, acting as Agents,

– the Swedish Government, by O. Åbrink and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents,

– the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by F. Blanc, M. Debieuvre, C. Faroghi and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 September 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1 The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of:

– Article 3(1), Article 17(1) and Article 19(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);

– 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), and

– Article 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between six third-country nationals who enjoy temporary protection and the Migrationsverket (Migration Agency, Sweden) (‘the Agency’) concerning the Agency’s decisions to reject their applications for international protection seeking the grant of refugee status and subsidiary protection status.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2001/55

3 Article 1 of Directive 2001/55 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.’

4 Article 2 of the directive 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 [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)), as supplemented by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967 (“the Geneva Convention”)];

…

(g) “residence permit” means any permit or authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State and taking the form provided for in that State’s legislation, allowing a third country national or a stateless person to reside on its territory;

…’

5 Under Article 3 of that directive:

‘1. Temporary protection shall not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention.

2. Member States shall apply temporary protection with due respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and their obligations regarding non-refoulement.

…

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.’

6 Article 17 of the directive is worded as follows:

‘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.’

7 Article 19 of Directive 2001/55 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

8 Directive 2011/95, adopted on the basis of Article 78(2)(a) and (b) TFEU, repealed Council Directive 2004/83/EC 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).

9 Recitals 12, 23, 24, 33 and 39 of Directive 2011/95 state:

(12) The main objective of this Directive is, on the one hand, to ensure that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection, and, on the other hand, to ensure that a minimum level of benefits is available for those persons in all Member States.

…

(23) Standards for the definition and content of refugee status should be laid down to guide the competent national bodies of Member States in the application of the Geneva Convention.

(24) It is necessary to introduce common criteria for recognising applicants for asylum as refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.

…

(33) Standards for the definition and content of subsidiary protection status should also be laid down. Subsidiary protection should be complementary and additional to the refugee protection enshrined in the Geneva Convention.

…

(39) While responding to the call of the Stockholm Programme for the establishment of a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and with the exception of derogations which are necessary and objectively justified, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status should be granted the same rights and benefits as those enjoyed by refugees under this Directive, and should be subject to the same conditions of eligibility.’

10 Under Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Purpose’:

‘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.’

11 Article 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘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);

…

(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;

…’

12 Article 18 of that directive, entitled ‘Granting of subsidiary protection status’, provides:

‘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 and V.’

Directive 2013/32

13 Directive 2013/32, adopted on the basis of Article 78(2)(d) TFEU, repealed 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).

14 Recitals 4 and 13 of that directive state:

‘(4) … a Common European Asylum System should include, in the short term, common standards for fair and efficient asylum procedures in the Member States and, in the longer term, [EU] rules leading to a common asylum procedure in the [European] Union.

…

(13) The approximation of rules on the procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection should help to limit the secondary movements of applicants for international protection between Member States, where such movements would be caused by differences in legal frameworks, and to create equivalent conditions for the application of Directive [2011/95] in Member States.’

15 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].’

16 Article 2 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘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;

…

(f) “determining authority” means any quasi-judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for examining applications for international protection competent to take decisions at first instance in such cases;

…

(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];

(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;

…’

17 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.’

18 Article 10 of that directive, headed ‘Requirements for the examination of applications’, provides, in paragraph 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.’

19 Article 33 of that directive, headed ‘Inadmissible applications’, provides, in paragraph 2:

‘Member States may consider an application for international protection as inadmissible only if:

(a) another Member State has granted international protection;

(b) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 35;

(c) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 38;

(d) the application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of [Directive 2011/95] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; or

(e) a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he or she has in accordance with Article 7(2) consented to have his or her case be part of an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation which justify a separate application.’

Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 and subsequent implementing decisions

20 Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 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) was adopted on the basis of Directive 2001/55.

21 Article 2(1) to (3) of that implementing decision provides:

‘1. This Decision applies to the following categories of persons displaced from Ukraine on or after 24 February 2022, as a result of the military invasion by Russian armed forces that began on that date:

(a) Ukrainian nationals residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022;

(b) stateless persons, and nationals of third countries other than Ukraine, who benefited from international protection or equivalent national protection in Ukraine before 24 February 2022; and,

(c) family members of the persons referred to in points (a) and (b).

2. Member States shall apply either this Decision or adequate protection under their national law, in respect of stateless persons, and nationals of third countries other than Ukraine, who can prove that they were legally residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022 on the basis of a valid permanent residence permit issued in accordance with Ukrainian law, and who are unable to return in safe and durable conditions to their country or region of origin.

3. In accordance with Article 7 of Directive [2001/55], Member States may also apply this Decision to other persons, including to stateless persons and to nationals of third countries other than Ukraine, who were residing legally in Ukraine and who are unable to return in safe and durable conditions to their country or region of origin.’

22 The temporary protection granted to displaced persons from Ukraine referred to in Article 2 of Implementing Decision 2022/382 was extended several times, most recently by Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1460 of 15 July 2025 extending the temporary protection introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 (OJ L, 2025/1460) until 4 March 2027.

Swedish law

23 The provisions governing the right of foreign nationals to reside in Sweden and the grant of international protection are set out in the Utlänningslagen (2005:716) (Law on Foreign Nationals (2005:716)) (‘the Law on Foreign Nationals’).

24 Chapter 21 of that law is intended to transpose into national law the provisions on temporary protection introduced by Directive 2001/55. That chapter was amended in the context of the transposition of Directives 2004/83 and 2005/85, but not at the time of the entry into force of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, which replaced them, respectively.

25 Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of that law provides:

‘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 Paragraph 1 of Chapter 4. The same is true of an application for the grant of refugee status, in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Chapter 4, and an application for a travel document, in accordance with Paragraph 4 of Chapter 4.

The examination of an application under the first subparagraph may be postponed only if there are special reasons for doing so. If the application has not been examined before the temporary protection has ceased to have effect, it must be examined as soon as possible after that date.’

26 The Agency, which is the authority with competence to grant residence permits by virtue of temporary protection, issues legal opinions instructing its administrators.

27 In accordance with the legal opinion entitled ‘Ordningen för prövningen enligt 21 kap. utlänningslagen’ (system for examining applications made under Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals), Paragraph 5 of that chapter does not preclude a person enjoying temporary protection from applying for refugee status. However, according to that opinion, the wording of Paragraph 5 does not provide for the possibility of examining applications for subsidiary protection.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

28 AA, a Nigerian national holding a permanent residence permit in Ukraine, BA, a Ukrainian national, and their four children, CA, DA, EA and FA, who are Ukrainian nationals, enjoy temporary protection, within the meaning of Directive 2001/55, in Sweden. That protection was granted to them on the basis of Implementing Decision 2022/382, the effects of which were extended most recently by Implementing Decision 2025/1460. The applicants in the main proceedings also submitted applications for international protection.

29 The Agency rejected AA’s application as unfounded in so far as it concerned refugee status and as inadmissible in so far as it concerned subsidiary protection status. The application submitted by BA and her four children was rejected as unfounded in so far as it related to refugee status and rejected, without being examined on the merits, in so far as it concerned subsidiary protection status. In the decisions rejecting those applications, the Agency stated, inter alia, that the national legislation governing the right of residence of foreign nationals and the grant of international protection, more specifically Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals, did not allow persons enjoying temporary protection, within the meaning of Directive 2001/55, to apply for subsidiary protection status, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 2 of Directive 2013/32.

30 The applicants in the main proceedings brought an action against those decisions before the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court for Immigration Matters, Gothenburg, Sweden), the referring court.

31 In support of their action, the applicants in the main proceedings submit that Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, governing the conditions and procedure for granting international protection, are applicable to persons enjoying temporary protection, within the meaning of Directive 2001/55. In that regard, the right to apply for asylum under Article 17 of Directive 2001/55 should be understood as a right to apply for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, in accordance with Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. The concept of ‘application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 17 of Directive 2001/55 should be understood as being synonymous with an application for ‘international protection’ as defined in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. In view of the purpose of Directive 2001/55 and the scheme of Articles 17 and 19 thereof, which, according to the applicants in the main proceedings, have direct effect, Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals is incompatible with EU law and, moreover, should have been amended so as to include the right to apply for subsidiary protection status.

32 The Agency submits that Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals precludes the examination of an application for subsidiary protection status made by a foreign national enjoying temporary protection. It states that, following the transposition of Directives 2004/83 and 2005/85, which were replaced by Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals, which allows foreign nationals enjoying temporary protection to apply for refugee status, was not amended in such a way that those nationals may apply for subsidiary protection status. That choice is compatible with EU law. Directive 2001/55 constitutes a special set of rules that is to be applied before and instead of the general rules on processing applications for international protection seeking the granting of refugee status or subsidiary protection status. The granting of temporary protection would result in Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 not applying in certain respects. The only exception to that rule is the right to lodge an application for asylum, that is to say, an application for refugee status. However, the merits of the applications of the applicants in the main proceedings for that status were examined before those applications were rejected.

33 The referring court is uncertain, first of all, as to the interpretation of Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55 and how those articles relate to Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. It is of the view that Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 are applicable both to an application for refugee status and to an application for subsidiary protection status lodged by persons enjoying temporary protection under Directive 2001/55, since the granting of those first two statuses, the second in the absence of the first, is the subject of a single application.

34 According to the referring court, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that Directive 2001/55 is intended to enable a large influx of persons eligible for subsidiary protection to be dealt with expeditiously and that the temporary protection made possible by it does not prevent a subsequent comprehensive application for international protection from being made (judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna , C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraphs 125 to 127).

35 The referring court goes on to observe that Directive 2001/55 must be interpreted in the light of the fact that subsidiary protection was not part of the EU asylum system when that directive was adopted, since subsidiary protection was introduced into EU law by Directive 2004/83, replaced by Directive 2011/95. It is apparent, in particular, from the wording of Article 19(2) of Directive 2001/55 and the Communication from the Commission on the 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 (OJ 2022 C 126I, p. 1), that the concept of ‘application for asylum’ in Article 17(1) of Directive 2001/55 should be interpreted as referring both to an application for refugee status and to an application for subsidiary protection status.

36 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the referring court is also uncertain whether Article 17(1) and Article 19(2) of Directive 2001/55, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32, have direct effect. Lastly, it has doubts as to the compatibility with EU law of the Swedish legislation at issue in the main proceedings and the consequences to be drawn from any incompatibility.

37 In those circumstances, the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Administrative Court for Immigration Matters, Gothenburg) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer 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 [Article 17(1) and Article 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 Directive 2011/95 and Directive 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 [Article 17(1) and Article 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 … 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?’

Procedure before the Court

38 In its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has requested that the present case be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

39 On 27 March 2025, the Third Chamber of the Court decided, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, that there was no need to grant that request, on the ground that the urgency required by that provision was not established in the present case.

40 By order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2025, it was decided that the present case be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Consideration of the questions referred

The first and second questions

41 By its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, must be interpreted as authorising a Member State to reject an application for international protection, in so far as it seeks to obtain subsidiary protection status, on the sole ground that the applicant enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55.

42 It is settled case-law that provisions of EU law which, like Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55, do not contain any express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining their meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which interpretation must take into account not only the wording of that provision but also its context and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, inter alia, judgment of 16 July 2020, AFMB and Others , C‑610/18, EU:C:2020:565, paragraph 50).

43 As regards, in the first place, the wording of the provisions whose interpretation is sought by the referring court, it should be noted, first, that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/55 states that temporary protection must not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention, while Article 17 of that directive provides that persons enjoying temporary protection must be able to lodge an application for asylum at any time and that the examination of any asylum application not processed before the end of the period of temporary protection must be completed after the end of that period.

44 Moreover, in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2001/55 where, after an asylum application has been examined, refugee status or, where applicable, another kind of protection is not granted to a person eligible for or enjoying temporary protection, the Member States are to provide, without prejudice to Article 28 of the directive, for that person to enjoy or to continue to enjoy temporary protection for the remainder of the period of protection.

45 Therefore, although those articles expressly mention only the possibility, for a person enjoying temporary protection, of applying for and obtaining refugee status, it cannot, however, be considered that it follows solely from the wording of those articles that they authorise the Member States to refuse to examine whether an applicant for international protection qualifies for subsidiary protection status so long as that applicant enjoys the temporary protection provided for by Directive 2001/55.

46 First, it is apparent from the very wording of Article 19 of Directive 2001/55 that protection other than asylum may be granted to persons enjoying temporary protection. Second, Articles 3, 17 and 19 of that directive do not refer to the way in which the procedure for obtaining subsidiary protection applies to a person enjoying temporary protection under that directive, nor does any other provision of that directive. As the Advocate General observed, in essence, in points 45 and 46 of his Opinion, the absence, in that directive, of any legislation in that regard can be explained both by the fact that Directive 2001/55 was adopted prior to Directive 2004/83, which established subsidiary protection status, and by the fact that Directive 2001/55 was never amended.

47 As regards, in the second place, the objective pursued by Directive 2001/55, it is apparent from Article 1 thereof that one of the objectives of that 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. 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, in the interests of the persons displaced and other persons requesting international protection. It follows that the purpose of the temporary protection mechanism introduced by that directive is, inter alia, to maintain the efficient operation of the international protection system in the Member States (judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna , C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraphs 81 and 125).

48 It follows that Directive 2001/55 is intended, inter alia, 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2024, Kaduna , C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 127).

49 Such an objective supports an interpretation of Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55, according to which those articles prevent Member States from considering that a person enjoying temporary protection may not, for as long as that protection lasts, seek to enjoy subsidiary protection.

50 In the third place, the context of which Directive 2001/55 forms part also supports such an interpretation, it being understood that particular attention must be paid to Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, which, like Directive 2001/55, form part of the common policy on international protection established by the EU legislature on the basis of what is now Article 78 TFEU.

51 In that regard, first, it must be noted that Directive 2011/95, which replaced Directive 2004/83, establishes, as did the latter directive, two separate systems of international protection, that is, refugee status and subsidiary protection status (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 September 2018, Ahmed , C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 38).

52 As is apparent from recitals 6 and 33 of Directive 2011/95, subsidiary protection is intended to be complementary and additional to the protection of refugees enshrined in the Geneva Convention (judgment of 13 September 2018, Ahmed , C‑369/17, EU:C:2018:713, paragraph 39).

53 In addition, it is clear from Articles 13 and 18 of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with the definitions of ‘refugee’ and ‘person eligible for subsidiary protection’ set out in Article 2(d) and (f) thereof, that the international protection referred to in that directive must, in principle, be granted to a third-country national or stateless person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, or faces a real risk of suffering serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of the directive (judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov , C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 49).

54 Therefore, 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 or Chapters II and V of Directive 2011/95, respectively, Member States are required, subject to the grounds for exclusion provided for by that directive and to the grounds of inadmissibility provided for by Directive 2013/32, to grant the international protection status sought, since those Member States have no discretion in that respect (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov , C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 50).

55 By contrast, no provision of Directive 2011/95 provides that persons enjoying temporary protection may not be granted subsidiary protection, that finding being consistent with the finding made in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the present judgment as regards Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55.

56 Second, Article 2 of Directive 2013/32 defines an application for international protection as 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.

57 Article 10(2) of that directive provides that, when examining applications for international protection, it is for the competent national authority first to determine whether the applicants qualify as refugees and, if not, determine whether the applicants are eligible for subsidiary protection. It follows that, as the European Commission has pointed out, an application for international protection may be rejected as unfounded only if the competent authority has reached the conclusion that neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection status could be granted to the applicant.

58 The Court has also held that Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32, relating to inadmissible applications, must be interpreted strictly and cannot therefore be applied to a situation which does not correspond to its wording. That provision thus sets out an exhaustive list of the situations in which the Member States may reject an application for international protection as inadmissible without examining the merits of the application (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 March 2020, Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Tompa) , C‑564/18, EU:C:2020:218, paragraph 30, and of 1 August 2022, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Child of refugees, born outside the host State) , C‑720/20, EU:C:2022:603, paragraph 51).

59 The fact that a person enjoys temporary protection is not one of the grounds of inadmissibility of applications for international protection referred to in Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32.

60 It therefore follows both from Directive 2011/95 and from Directive 2013/32, first, that a Member State may not reject as inadmissible an application for international protection on the sole ground that it has been made by a third-country national or a stateless person who enjoys the temporary protection provided for by Directive 2001/55 and, second, that, before rejecting that application as unfounded, it is necessary to examine whether that applicant qualifies for refugee status or, if not, for subsidiary protection status, since the fact that he or she already enjoys temporary protection has no bearing in that regard.

61 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first two questions is that Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55, read in the light of Directive 2011/95 and Directive 2013/32, must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to reject an application for international protection, in so far as it seeks to obtain subsidiary protection status, on the sole ground that the applicant enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55.

The third and fourth questions

62 By its third and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 17(1) and Article 19(2) of Directive 2001/55, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32, must be interpreted as having direct effect.

63 In that regard, it should be borne in mind at the outset that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions submitted to it. The Court may also find it necessary to consider provisions of EU law which the national court has not referred to in its questions (see, inter alia, judgment of 4 September 2025, Casa Judeţeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș and Others , C‑489/23, EU:C:2025:651, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

64 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that, by its third and fourth questions, the referring court seeks to determine whether it must disapply Swedish legislation under which the competent national authority is required to consider that a third-country national or a stateless person may not be granted subsidiary protection, within the meaning of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, so long as he or she enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55, on account of the incompatibility of that legislation with a provision of EU law with direct effect.

65 It follows from paragraphs 45 and 46 and from paragraphs 53 to 60 of the present judgment that, first, Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32 preclude a Member State from refusing to grant subsidiary protection status to a third-country national or a stateless person on the sole ground that he or she enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55 and, second, that Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55 are not such as to call into question such a finding.

66 In those circumstances, it is appropriate to reformulate the third and fourth questions and to consider that, by those questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as having direct effect and, therefore, where it is not possible to interpret national legislation in a manner consistent with the requirements flowing from those articles, it is for the national courts to disapply that legislation.

67 In the first place, it must be borne in mind that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of all provisions of EU law, the primacy principle requires, inter alia, national courts to interpret, to the greatest extent possible, their national law in conformity with EU law (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski , C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 57).

68 The obligation to interpret national law in a manner consonant with EU law cannot, however, serve as a basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem (judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal , C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:800, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).

69 Consequently, it is for the referring court to assess whether Article 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals may be interpreted as meaning that the grant of a residence permit, on the basis of Directive 2001/55, does not preclude the examination of the merits of an application for international protection seeking the grant of subsidiary protection status. The fact that an interpretation of that national provision which is incompatible with EU law is supported by the Agency by means of an opinion is irrelevant in that regard.

70 In the second place, should the referring court find that national legislation cannot be interpreted in conformity with EU law, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon before the national courts by individuals against the State where the latter has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly (judgment of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften , C‑684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

71 In the present case, Article 18 of Directive 2011/95, which enshrines the right of every third-country national or stateless person to be recognised as enjoying subsidiary protection status if he or she satisfies the conditions laid down in Chapters II and V of that directive, lays down a rule the content of which is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be recognised as having direct effect.

72 Similarly, since Article 33 of Directive 2013/32, as observed in paragraph 58 of the present judgment, sets out an exhaustive list of the cases in which an application for international protection may be rejected as inadmissible, that article sets out a rule whose content is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be regarded as having direct effect (judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság , C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 182).

73 Consequently, if the referring court were to find that it is not conceivable to interpret its national law in conformity with Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013/32, it would be required to ensure within its jurisdiction the judicial protection for individuals flowing from Articles 18 and 33, and to guarantee their full effectiveness by disapplying, if need be, Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the Law on Foreign Nationals (see, by analogy, judgment of 3 June 2025, Kinsa , C‑460/23, EU:C:2025:392, paragraph 72).

74 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third and fourth questions is that Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as having direct effect and, therefore, where it is not possible to interpret national legislation in a manner consistent with the requirements flowing from Articles 18 and 33, it is for the national courts to disapply that legislation.

Costs

75 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:

1. 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, read in the light 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, and 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 not authorising a Member State to reject an application for international protection, in so far as it seeks to obtain subsidiary protection status, on the sole ground that the applicant enjoys temporary protection under Directive 2001/55.

2. Article 18 of Directive 2011/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013/32

must be interpreted as having direct effect and, therefore, where it is not possible to interpret national legislation in a manner consistent with the requirements flowing from Articles 18 and 33, it is for the national courts to disapply that legislation.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Swedish.

i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.