Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2024 – AI, ZY, BG v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-290/24, Abkez) ¹

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AI, ZY, BG

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

Must Article 4 of Council Directive 2001/55/EC ¹ 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 be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has made use of the possibility offered by Article 7(1) of that directive also to grant temporary protection under that directive to additional categories of displaced persons (‘the optional group’), the temporary protection given to that optional group continues not only in the case of an automatic extension as referred to in Article 4(1) for the period specified in that provision, but also in the case of a decision to extend the period as referred to in Article 4(2) for the period specified in that provision?

Does it make any difference to the answer to the question of whether the temporary protection given to the optional group continues in the event of a decision to extend it as referred to in Article 4(2) that a Member State has decided to terminate the temporary protection given to the optional group before the Council has decided to extend the temporary protection for one year as referred to in Article 4(2)?

____________

¹ The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

¹ OJ 2001 L 212, p. 12.