The case is registered before the CJEU under C-195/25 [Framholm].
The applicants, B. A., Ukrainian national and AA who is a Nigerian national, with a permanent residence permit in Ukraine, together with their four children, applied for international protection in Sweden. The family are beneficiaries of temporary protection in Sweden and the Swedish Migration Agency (SMA) rejected the application of AA and in a separate decision the application of BA and the children, considering that the status of temporary protection and Chapter 21 of the Law on foreign nationals are special provisions which do not allow for the examination of an application for subsidiary protection for as long as the temporary protection status is valid.
The applicants appealed against the SMA decision and requested before the Administrative Court for Immigration Matters to be granted refugee status and a travel document or subsidiary protection status. They also requested the case to be re-examined by the SMA and that a preliminary ruling be requested before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The Administrative Court for Immigration Matters, Gothenburg (Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen) submitted a referral for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU, seeking interpretation of Articles 3, 17 and 19 of Directive 2001/55 on temporary protection as well as guidance on the interplay of these articles with the scope of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) and the recast Qualification Directive as well as interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 10(2) of the recast APD. The referring court sought guidance on whether the Swedish legislation is compatible with EU law.
The following questions were submitted:
- Are Directive 2011/95/EU and Directive 2013/32/EU applicable to applications for a grant of protection status following the granting of temporary protection under Directive 2001/55?
- (a) Must Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive 2001/55/EC 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?
- If Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of Directive 2001/55 also cover the right to apply for subsidiary protection status under the Directive 2011/95, are those articles, in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32, sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect?
- Is national legislation, such as the Swedish rules in Paragraph 5 of Chapter 21 of the utlänningslagen (2005:716) (Law on foreign nationals (2005:716)), 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?
The CJEU pronounced a preliminary ruling AA, BA, CA, DA, EA, FA v Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket‚ SMA),[Framholm], C-195/25, ECLI:EU:C:2025:904, 20 November 2025.