The case concerned a request for interim relief against the State Secretary decision of 7 February 2024 where the latter issued a return decision, ordering the applicant to leave the Netherlands within 28 days starting on 4 March 2024, when the temporary protection of the applicant ended. The Court of the Hague seated in Utrecht rejected the request as unfounded and the applicant appealed further before the Council of State.

The Council of State also referred to its previous ruling of 17 January 2024, Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), here it found that temporary protection of third country nationals displaced from Ukraine and who held a temporary residence there, will end on 4 March 2024, contrary to temporary protection of Ukrainians, stateless and third country nationals with an asylum status or permanent residence in Ukraine whom temporary protection will end on 4 March 2025.

The Council of State referred to the judgment of 29 March 2024,  Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid),  where the Court of the Hague seated in Amsterdam referred three questions before the CJEU for interpretation of the Temporary Protection Directive, the and the Council Implementation Decision of 19 October 2023 (extending temporary protection until 4 March 2025).

It also referred to the judgment of the Council of State in the case Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), (202402011/2/V3., ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1341, 29 March 2024) where the preliminary judge considered that the implementation of the return decision issued by the State Secretary must be suspended and that the applicant must be treated as beneficiary of temporary protection by virtue of the Temporary Protection Directive, and the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 and (EU) 2023/2409 of 19 October 2023.

The Council of State decided to allow the interim relief request, ordered the suspension of the implementation of the return decision and stated that the applicant must be treated as beneficiary of temporary protection pending the outcome of the appeal.