Four years after Serbia first activated temporary protection for people displaced from Ukraine, a mechanism designed for emergencies now governs the multi-year stay of some 1,400 people. The European Union has extended protection until March 2028, while in Serbia it is extended by Government decision without an express basis in law. In this policy proposal, IDEAS analyses the existing framework and implementation experience and puts forward concrete legislative and operational solutions.
Temporary protection is an emergency, collective and time-limited protection mechanism. It is designed for situations involving a mass influx of displaced persons in which conducting individual asylum procedures would be impracticable or would jeopardise the functioning of the asylum system. Its purpose is not to replace international protection, but to provide an immediate, orderly and legally predictable state response in an emergency. In the Republic of Serbia, the mechanism was activated for the first time by the Government Decision on Providing Temporary Protection in the Republic of Serbia to Displaced Persons Coming from Ukraine, published on 18 March 2022.
Four years later, implementation experience shows that the existing framework responded successfully to the emergency reception phase but is not suited to protracted displacement. This is most evident in the duration of protection. The extension “for as long as the reasons persist”, introduced by the 2024 amendment to the Government Decision, has no express basis in Article 75 of the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection (LATP), which limits the total duration to a maximum of two years. This has created a conflict between a by-law and the Law, raising a serious question of compliance with Article 195 of the Constitution.
Legal gaps also exist in the content of protection. The catalogue of rights under Article 76 of the LATP is narrower than the minimum standards under Directive 2001/55/EC with regard to social assistance, accommodation and education, while in practice the beneficiary’s document does not always enable seamless proof of status and exercise of rights. Furthermore, neither the transition of beneficiaries to more durable grounds of residence nor the consequences of the termination of protection are regulated. There is no legal bridge to more durable statuses for persons who have lived lawfully, worked and educated their children in Serbia for years, nor is there a regulated procedure for the event of termination. This is occurring at a time when the Council of the European Union, on 30 July 2026, extended protection until 4 March 2028, having already established a coordinated but non-binding approach to transition in its Recommendation of 16 September 2025.
The proposed improvements can be achieved through amendments to existing legislation, without placing an additional burden on institutions. Inaction, by contrast, deepens legal uncertainty for beneficiaries and the competent authorities, because the extension of protection rests on a basis that could be challenged before the Constitutional Court at any time. The impact on the asylum system presents a particular risk. If protection ended abruptly, a substantial share of the population of approximately 1,400 beneficiaries would enter individual asylum procedures, leaving a system that decides approximately 130 applications each year facing several hundred new cases. Such an outcome would also send a negative signal in the accession negotiations under Chapter 24.
1. Amend Article 75 of the LATP so that temporary protection may continue to be extended by annual, reasoned Government decisions for as long as the reasons objectively persist. This should be subject to mandatory periodic review of the situation in the country of origin. It would bring the domestic framework substantively into line with the logic of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/55/EC, supplemented by a domestic procedure for annual review, and eliminate the conflict between the Government Decision and the Law.
2. Amend Article 76 of the LATP so that it expressly guarantees the rights that are currently missing. These are:
3. Establish a dedicated registration procedure for temporary protection and ensure continuity of status and rights. Instead of using the certificate form intended for a person who has expressed an intention to apply for asylum, a separate certificate of registration for persons seeking temporary protection should be prescribed. The certificate should clearly state that the registration concerns temporary protection, while at the same time recognising lawful stay and basic rights pending an individual decision. The status and rights of a beneficiary who submits a timely application for extension should continue until the procedure on that application is finally concluded.
4. Establish a legal bridge to more durable statuses by introducing a new Article 76a of the LATP and giving priority to amending the Law on Foreigners. The right to permanent residence should primarily be regulated by the Law on Foreigners, following the model of the special ground applicable to persons granted asylum. Time spent under temporary protection would then count towards the required period of lawful or continuous residence, provided that all other statutory conditions are met. The new Article 76a of the LATP should synchronise that regime and expressly permit applications for residence on another ground to be submitted without leaving the country and without loss of protection pending a decision. Only if the Law on Foreigners cannot be amended within an appropriate period should the right to permanent residence be regulated temporarily and comprehensively in the LATP as a lex specialis.
5. Regulate termination and the deferred effect of a decision terminating temporary protection. Protection should end only on the basis of a reasoned, objective assessment that return is safe, dignified and sustainable. The Government decision should set the date on which protection ends in light of the circumstances of the particular crisis, provided that this date may not fall earlier than six months or later than one year after publication of the decision. Until that date, beneficiaries should retain their status and rights, with an express prohibition on enforced removal while protection remains in force. Beneficiaries should have the right to appeal an individual termination decision and other individual status decisions to the Asylum Commission and the right to initiate an administrative dispute, with both the appeal and the action having suspensive effect.
6. Adopt a national transition scheme modelled on EU Council Recommendation C/2025/5129. The scheme should include:
This advocacy paper was prepared within IDEAS’ Asylum and Migration Programme as a contribution to an informed public debate on strengthening the temporary protection mechanism and aligning it with the European Union acquis. IDEAS remains available to the competent authorities to discuss the proposals, provide more detailed explanations and offer expert support in their further development.
Information on asylum and free legal aid in Ukrainian and Russian is available on our pages Asylum information – UKR and Asylum information – RUS.