On 1 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-249/25 (Jilin), following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Council of State (Raad van State). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55/EC (the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)) and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (rAPD)), and whether Member States may automatically suspend the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection until that protection expires.
The Court clarified that Article 17(2) TPD provides that 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. However, that provision does not confer on Member States the power to automatically suspend the examination of applications for international protection during the period of temporary protection.
It further held that beneficiaries of temporary protection are not excluded from the scope of Directive 2011/95/EU (the recast Qualification Directive) and Directive 2013/32/EU (rAPD). The general rules for examining applications for international protection, including the time limits under Article 31 rAPD apply, in principle, regardless of whether the applicant enjoys temporary protection. Furthermore, Article 31 rAPD already allows Member States, under certain circumstances, to extend the time limit for examining applications where their international protection systems face increased pressure. Therefore, the EU legislature already took account of the administrative difficulties arising from a large number of applications lodged simultaneously.
The Court further rejected the argument that a generalised and automatic suspension is necessary to achieve the TPD’s objectives. Temporary protection provides immediate, more limited protection while preserving access to international protection following an individual examination. Its implementation does not necessarily mean that national asylum systems face more applications than they can handle, while automatic suspension could leave authorities having to examine numerous applications simultaneously when temporary protection ends.
Finally, it accepted that exceptionally, the lodging of a considerable number of applications over a short period may make it objectively impossible for the Member States to comply with the time limits of Article 31 rAPD. In such circumstances, authorities may temporarily defer the examination of some applications, even if the applicable time limits cannot always be met. It is for the national courts to verify that any failure to meet the time limits does not result from a generalised and automatic suspension, but only from measures necessary to deal with such an impossibility while avoiding the congestion of the national international protection system.