The applicant, a third country national displaced from Ukraine, contested the decision adopted by the State Secretariat for Justice and Security on 26 July 2024 according to which the applicant was not eligible for temporary protection. The negative decision was upheld by a judgment of 3 December 2024 pronounced by the District Court of the Hague. In the appeal before the Council of State, the applicant alleged that the lower court wrongly considered that the Minister for Asylum and Migration (*replacing the State Secretariat for Justice and Security) rightly interpreted and applied the concept of ‘spouse’. While it was uncontested that the applicant had a legal and valid marriage with his wife of Ukrainian nationality since 2021, the minister noted the applicant’s statement that he had no contact with his wife since the end of 2022 and that the later arrived in the Netherlands with another man with whom she was living in the Netherlands.

The Council of State noted that the District Court of the Hague followed the assessment of the minister, according to which the applicant could not be considered a spouse because, despite the existence of a legal marriage, however he no longer formed a family with her. The minister reasoning relied on the literal text of Article 15(1)(a) of the Temporary Protection Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(4)(a) of the Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, namely that the spouse of a sponsor is a family member.

The Council of State allowed the appeal and affirmed that, on basis of the marriage to his Ukrainian wife, the applicant met the requirements of Article 15(1)(a) of the Temporary protection Directive, falling within the eligible category provided by Article 2 (1) opening words and under c, read jointly with Article 2 (4), opening words and under a, of the Council Implementing Decision 2022/382.

The Council of State mentioned that the lower court did not provide a justification for taking into account only the Minister’s objection related to the fact that the applicant did not maintain a stable relationship with his wife. The Council of State emphasised that the applicant is considered a family member within the meaning of the Temporary Protection Directive and the Council Implementing Decision.