Legal Justification of Discrimination Against Ukrainians Through the Temporary Protection Mechanism

v.4.3 - to be updated...

 

1. Introduction

Ukrainians displaced by the war are not granted refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Instead, they fall under temporary protection frameworks that lack the same legal guarantees and long-term security.

Despite being widely referred to as “refugees” in public discourse, this classification is misleading. The temporary protection status granted to Ukrainians does not provide the same rights as full asylum, leaving them in a precarious legal position where key protections under international refugee law may not apply.

A critical issue with temporary protection is its lack of permanence. The status can be revoked or not extended at any time, exposing displaced Ukrainians to the ongoing risk of deportation, forced return, or loss of residency rights. This legal uncertainty is compounded by media narratives and official statements suggesting possible removals, extraditions, or compulsory military conscription, creating a climate of fear and instability.

As a result, millions of displaced Ukrainians live under continuous uncertainty, without assurances about their legal future or access to long-term residency. This situation raises concerns about compliance with international human rights obligations, as it subjects displaced individuals to systemic legal insecurity and psychological distress.

 

2. Key Issues of Temporary Protection

• Denial of refugee status despite meeting international criteria – The ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine falls under the definition of “grounds for asylum” as outlined in Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, displaced Ukrainians are systematically denied full refugee status and the corresponding legal protections, placing them in an inferior legal category without justification under international law.

• Discriminatory treatment compared to other refugees – While other displaced persons receive full refugee status, leading to permanent residency and long-term protection, Ukrainians are subject to a time-limited temporary protection framework that excludes them from key rights such as long-term integration, family reunification, and social stability. This differential treatment contradicts the principle of non-discrimination under Article 3 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Lack of a clear path to permanent residency or naturalization – Under international refugee law, states are encouraged to facilitate the naturalization and long-term integration of refugees, as stipulated in Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The temporary protection mechanism applied to Ukrainians, however, explicitly excludes such pathways, creating a situation of prolonged legal uncertainty.

• Risk of forced return in violation of international law – The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, prohibits the return of individuals to a country where their life or freedom would be at risk. Temporary protection, by its nature, lacks guarantees of renewal and exposes Ukrainians to the continuous risk of deportation once the program expires, creating an unstable legal environment that contradicts established refugee protection standards.

• Psychological coercion and legal uncertainty as a form of inhumane treatment – The persistent threat of deportation, combined with restrictive policies limiting employment, social security, and legal stability, places Ukrainians under continuous psychological distress. Under Article 1 of the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture, mental suffering inflicted through coercion, intimidation, or prolonged uncertainty can constitute inhumane or degrading treatment, which is explicitly prohibited under international law.

 

This document presents a detailed analysis of the systemic legal inconsistencies and discriminatory policies applied to Ukrainians under temporary protection, supported by references to international legal instruments, human rights reports, legal precedents, and comparative case studies. The evidence demonstrates that the current framework does not meet established refugee protection obligations and necessitates urgent legal scrutiny.

 

3. Legal Violations of Temporary Protection for Ukrainians

3.1. Violations of International Law and Conventions

 

 

3.1.1. 1951 Refugee Convention

• Article 1(A)(2) – Definition of a Refugee

The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person who, due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin. The armed conflict in Ukraine meets these criteria, yet Ukrainians are placed under temporary protection instead of full refugee status, depriving them of permanent legal guarantees and protections that recognized refugees receive.

Moreover, individuals under temporary protection face an additional legal risk not present in traditional refugee frameworks—their protection is tied exclusively to the ongoing state of war. In the event of a ceasefire or political settlement, there is a legal loophole allowing states to revoke protection status and initiate repatriation, regardless of ongoing risks such as political persecution, forced conscription, repression, or unsafe living conditions. This violates the principle of durable refugee protection under international law.

 

• Article 3 – Non-Discrimination

The Convention prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the treatment of refugees. However, Ukrainians under temporary protection face two distinct forms of discrimination:

1. Discrimination based on nationality – Ukrainians receive fewer rights compared to other displaced persons, including limited access to permanent residency, reduced social benefits, and weaker legal protections.

2. Discrimination based on gender – Men of conscription age face additional legal and administrative barriers, such as selective denial of status renewal, greater risk of deportation, and political pressure for forced return. This creates a gender-based disparity in protection, which contradicts international human rights principles.

 

• Article 31 – No Penalty for Illegal Entry

Refugees cannot be penalized for unauthorized entry when fleeing conflict or persecution. However, some countries impose restrictive entry conditions for Ukrainians, such as financial sponsorship requirements or administrative delays, contradicting this principle. Additionally, Ukrainian men of conscription age have reported denied border crossings or facing additional questioning, further compounding the discriminatory application of temporary protection.

 

• Article 33 – Non-Refoulement

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits the forced return of individuals to a country where they face persecution or serious harm. However, Ukrainians under temporary protection face multiple risks of forced return:

1. Expiration of Temporary Protection – Once temporary protection expires, there is no automatic transition to another legal status, leaving many individuals vulnerable to deportation to Ukraine, regardless of safety conditions.

2. Risk Upon a Ceasefire or Political Settlement – Unlike full refugee status, which is assessed on an individual basis, temporary protection is granted based on a collective assumption of risk due to war. In the event of a ceasefire or peace agreement—even if Ukraine remains unsafe—states could revoke protection status, interpreting the end of hostilities as a signal for forced return. This contradicts Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, which protects against refoulement based on ongoing personal risks, not just the presence of active conflict.

3. Gender-Based Refoulement – Ukrainian men of conscription age face a disproportionate risk of deportationcompared to other refugees, violating the principle of equal treatment in refugee protection.

 

• Article 34 – Facilitation of Integration and Naturalization

Recognized refugees are entitled to assistance with integration, including access to permanent residency and naturalization. However, Ukrainians under temporary protection are explicitly excluded from pathways to permanent legal status, keeping them in a state of legal uncertainty. This violates the Convention’s directive to facilitate long-term stability for displaced persons.

 

3.1.2. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

• Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

The risk of forced conscription, repression, or political persecution for men forcibly returned to Ukraine after temporary protection ends constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. This risk is not eliminated by a ceasefire—individuals may still face repressive policies, extrajudicial punishments, or military service under coercion.

 

• Article 4 – Prohibition of Forced Labor

Mandatory military service under threat of criminal prosecution qualifies as forced labor under international human rights standards. Deporting Ukrainian men of conscription age to a situation where they may be coerced into military service against their will violates Article 4 of the ECHR.

 

• Article 8 – Right to Private and Family Life

The inability of Ukrainians under temporary protection to secure long-term residency status disrupts family unity. The constant threat of status revocation upon a ceasefire or expiration of temporary protection further violates the right to private and family life, as individuals cannot make stable long-term decisions regarding housing, employment, or education.

 

• Article 13 – Right to an Effective Remedy

Individuals under temporary protection often lack effective legal mechanisms to challenge decisions affecting their status, such as the denial of protection renewal, restrictions on employment, or threats of deportation. Many temporary protection frameworks do not provide a structured appeals process or judicial review, leaving displaced persons without legal recourse.

This violates Article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a competent authority for violations of fundamental rights. The absence of clear legal remedies undermines legal certainty and due process, exposing individuals to arbitrary administrative decisions without the possibility of appeal.

 

• Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination

Two distinct forms of discrimination occur under temporary protection policies:

1. Nationality-Based Discrimination – Ukrainians receive fewer protections compared to other refugee groups.

2. Gender-Based Discrimination – Ukrainian men of conscription age face disproportionate risks of deportation and denial of protection renewal.

Both forms of discrimination violate Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

 

3.1.3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)

• Article 1 – Right to Self-Determination

Denying Ukrainians under temporary protection the ability to transition into long-term legal status prevents them from exercising their right to self-determination, forcing them into a cycle of legal instability.

 

• Article 7 – Prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment

The psychological pressure created by the uncertainty of temporary protection, combined with the threat of forced return upon a ceasefire or expiration of protection status, constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR.

 

• Article 9 – Right to Liberty and Security

Ukrainians under temporary protection live in a state of legal uncertainty. The risk of status revocation based on a political decision, rather than an individual assessment of safety, violates the right to legal security and protection from arbitrary legal decisions.

 

• Article 26 – Non-Discrimination and Equality Before the Law

Discriminatory policies disproportionately affecting Ukrainian men of conscription age, including selective renewal denials and forced returns, violate Article 26’s guarantee of equal treatment.

 

3.1.4. UN Convention Against Torture (1984)

• Article 1 – Definition of Torture

Systematic threats of deportation upon expiration or ceasefire, despite ongoing risks, create chronic fear and mental distress. This may qualify as psychological coercion and inhumane treatment under Article 1 of the Convention.

 

• Article 16 – Obligation to Prevent Inhumane Treatment

Keeping Ukrainians in a prolonged state of legal uncertainty, while exposing them to the constant threat of removal based on political developments, constitutes a form of psychological coercion that falls within the scope of Article 16.

 

3.1.5. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

 

• Article 7(1)(h) – Persecution Based on Nationality and Gender

The targeting of Ukrainian men for potential deportation and forced military service constitutes persecution based on both nationality and gender, which qualifies as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

 

• Article 7(1)(k) – Inhumane Acts Causing Severe Mental or Physical Suffering

The ongoing psychological pressure placed on Ukrainians under temporary protection—due to legal uncertainty, the risk of removal, and the inability to obtain permanent status—meets the criteria for inhumane treatment under Article 7(1)(k).

 

3.2. Conclusion

The analysis of legal violations in the temporary protection system demonstrates systemic inconsistencies with international law, particularly in relation to discrimination, legal uncertainty, and the risk of deportation. The denial of full refugee status, combined with differentiated treatment based on nationality and gender, contradicts the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, equal protection under the law, and the right to security.

A particularly concerning issue is that temporary protection does not provide long-term legal guarantees, meaning that Ukrainians under this status remain vulnerable to revocation not only at the end of the protection period but also in the event of a ceasefire or political reclassification of Ukraine as “safe.” This creates an unstable and coercive legal environment, where individuals may be forcibly returned to a country still experiencing systemic human rights violations, forced conscription, or political repression.

The violations of international treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, require urgent legal reassessment and corrective measures to align temporary protection policies with established refugee protection norms and ensure equal treatment and legal certainty for displaced Ukrainians.

 

4. European Union (Temporary Protection Directive, Directive 2001/55/EC)

The Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC), granting temporary protection to Ukrainians. However, this status differs significantly from refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Below are the key differences in rights and restrictions between these two statuses.

 

4.1. Duration and Stability of Status

Refugee status is granted for an extended period with the possibility of renewal and eventual permanent residency.

Temporary protection is provided for a fixed period, initially one year, extendable up to three years in the EU, but does not guarantee permanent status. Once the directive expires, individuals under temporary protection may face deportation if no alternative legal framework is provided (European Commission).

 

4.2. Access to the Labor Market

Refugee status grants full access to the labor market without restrictions, allowing individuals to secure employment under the same conditions as citizens.

Temporary protection grants access to employment, but conditions vary by country. In some cases, access is limited to specific contract types, making long-term job security uncertain (European Commission).

 

4.3. Access to Social Services and Healthcare

Refugees receive full access to social services, including financial assistance, housing support, and healthcare, often on equal terms with citizens of the host country.

Individuals under temporary protection, however, receive significantly lower benefits. In multiple EU countries, social assistance for refugees is several times higher than for those under temporary protection.

 

4.3.1. Example: Austria

• Refugees receive ~€1,000 per month, while Ukrainians under temporary protection receive only €190–260, depending on the region.

• Healthcare access is conditional—in April 2025, Ukrainians lost mandatory health insurance due to changes in eligibility rules.

 

4.4. Family Reunification Rights

Refugee status includes full rights to family reunification, allowing family members to join the applicant in the host country.

Temporary protection, however, does not guarantee these rights. In some countries, family reunification is only permitted if all family members were registered at the same time, restricting options for separated families (European Commission).

 

4.5. Freedom of Movement and Passport Rights

Refugee status restricts international travel. Refugees do not have the right to use their national passport but instead receive a refugee travel document issued by the host country. Traveling to the country of origin is strictly prohibited, as it may result in the loss of refugee status due to the assumption that the individual no longer faces persecution.

Temporary protection, in contrast, allows individuals to retain and use their Ukrainian passport, enabling them to travel internationally, including to Ukraine.

This key difference makes temporary protection appear more attractive, especially for those who wish to move freely. However, for Ukrainian men of conscription age, this flexibility creates a legal trap. Since they retain their Ukrainian passport, they are still subject to Ukrainian laws, including military conscription. Traveling to Ukraine under temporary protection may lead to legal consequences, forced recruitment, or restrictions upon exit.

Thus, while temporary protection may be beneficial for women, children, and elderly individuals, it presents significant legal risks for men of military age, as it does not sever their legal ties with Ukrainian authorities.

 

4.6. Path to Citizenship

Refugee status allows individuals to apply for permanent residency and naturalization after a legally defined period, usually five years.

Temporary protection does not provide any direct pathway to permanent residency or citizenship, leaving individuals in long-term uncertainty regarding their legal status (European Commission).

 

4.7. Protection from Deportation and Extradition

Refugee status offers strong legal protection against deportation and prevents the extradition of individuals to countries where they might face persecution, torture, or political repression.

Temporary protection, however, does not automatically provide such guarantees. Individuals under this status are protected from deportation only as long as the directive remains in effect. Once it expires, there is no legal framework ensuring continued protection.

Multiple affected individuals have reported difficulties in renewing their temporary protection in certain EU countries, including Italy and France. These reports suggest that Ukrainian men of conscription age may face selective barriers to renewal, raising concerns about potential inconsistencies with the non-refoulement principle under international law.

There are also documented cases of Ukrainian nationals being extradited from EU states at the request of Ukrainian authorities. Unlike refugees, individuals under temporary protection are not automatically shielded from politically motivated extradition. Some reports indicate that EU countries process extradition requests from Ukraine, particularly targeting those accused of draft evasion or political dissent. If confirmed, such cases could raise serious concerns regarding due process, human rights violations, and forced returns.

 

4.8. Legal Process to Obtain Status

Refugee status requires an individual asylum application, which can be a lengthy process, often requiring proof of persecution.

Temporary protection is granted automatically to specific groups without individual case review, making it faster to obtain but also easier to revoke (European Commission).

4.9. Conclusion

The differences between refugee status and temporary protection highlight a fundamental legal and structural gap in the EU’s approach to displaced Ukrainians. While temporary protection provides basic short-term safeguards, it does not offer the same legal stability, access to rights, or long-term security as full refugee status.

 

4.10 Key takeaways:

• Temporary protection is not equivalent to refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

• No guaranteed path to permanent residency or citizenship.

• Social benefits for individuals under temporary protection are significantly lower than those for refugees.

• Limited access to employment, healthcare, and social benefits.

• Potential deportation after 2026 if no further legal protections are enacted.

• Freedom of movement under temporary protection can be deceptive, as it allows individuals to retain their passports and travel, but also keeps them legally bound to Ukrainian authorities.

• Reports indicate cases of denied renewals for Ukrainian men of conscription age, raising concerns about potential human rights violations.

• Risk of extradition for individuals under temporary protection, particularly if Ukrainian authorities pursue politically motivated legal actions.

 

4.11. List of Laws, Conventions, and Regulations Violated by the Temporary Protection System in the EU

The current system of temporary protection for Ukrainians in the European Union (EU), while providing some form of legal status, creates a situation that violates multiple international and EU legal norms. Below is a structured list of specific legal provisions, directives, and conventions that the EU’s handling of Ukrainian refugees under temporary protection potentially breaches.

 

4.11.1. Violations of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Its 1967 Protocol

As a fundamental international treaty governing refugee rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention ensures non-discrimination, access to permanent protection, and non-refoulement. The temporary protection system in the EU contradicts the following provisions:

• Article 1(A)(2): Definition of a Refugee

• Ukrainians meet the definition of a refugee but are not granted refugee status, instead being placed under a separate, legally uncertain category.

• Article 3: Prohibition of Discrimination

• Ukrainians under temporary protection receive significantly fewer rights than other refugees, which constitutes de facto discrimination.

• Article 31: No Penalties for Illegal Entry

• Some EU countries impose additional entry conditions for Ukrainians (such as requiring sponsorship or financial guarantees), violating the principle that refugees should not be penalized for their mode of entry.

• Article 33: Principle of Non-Refoulement

• Reports suggest that Ukrainian men of conscription age face denials of temporary protection extensions in some EU countries (e.g., Spain, France). This could lead to their forced return to Ukraine, violating the principle of non-refoulement.

• Article 34: Facilitation of Integration and Naturalization

• Refugees should be supported in obtaining permanent residency and citizenship. However, temporary protection does not provide a pathway to permanent status, violating this principle.

 

  4.11.2. Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), overseen by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), establishes fundamental rights that temporary protection policies violate:

• Article 3: Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

• The psychological pressure of legal uncertainty, threats of deportation, and the inability to secure long-term protection create a form of psychological coercion, which could amount to degrading treatment.

• Article 4: Prohibition of Forced Labor

• Forcing individuals into low-paid, unskilled labor (as seen in Germany’s job center policies) due to legal restrictions and lack of long-term residency prospects could be seen as indirect coercion.

• Article 8: Right to Private and Family Life

• Restrictions on family reunification under temporary protection violate the right to private and family life, particularly when compared to refugees who have full reunification rights.

• Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination

• Ukrainians under temporary protection are treated unequally compared to recognized refugees. This discriminatory legal structure has no objective justification.

• Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial

• Ukrainians under temporary protection often lack legal recourse to challenge denials of protection renewal, social benefits revocations, or deportation orders, violating their right to a fair legal process.

• Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy

• Many Ukrainians under temporary protection do not have a clear legal mechanism to challenge government decisions, violating the requirement that individuals must have access to effective legal remedies.

 

4.11.3. Violations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

As an integral part of EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union sets binding human rights obligations on all EU member states. The temporary protection system violates:

• Article 1: Human Dignity

• The denial of equal rights, combined with legal uncertainty, psychological stress, and limitations on employment and benefits, violates the fundamental principle of human dignity.

• Article 15: Freedom to Choose an Occupation and Right to Work

• While refugees can freely work, individuals under temporary protection face barriers to stable employment, such as contractual limitations and uncertain residency status.

• Article 21: Non-Discrimination

• The discrepancy in rights between Ukrainian refugees under temporary protection and other refugees constitutes direct discrimination based on nationality.

• Article 24: Rights of the Child

• The revocation of medical insurance for Ukrainian children in Austria and the exclusion of Ukrainian families from social protection in some EU states violate the fundamental rights of children.

• Article 47: Right to an Effective Remedy and Fair Trial

• Ukrainians under temporary protection cannot appeal non-renewal decisions or deportation risks in the same way that recognized refugees can, violating their legal protection rights.

 

4.11.4. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)

The temporary protection system contradicts several key provisions of the ICCPR:

• Article 7: Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment

• The uncertainty, threats of deportation, and forced mobility experienced by individuals under temporary protection could be classified as degrading treatment.

• Article 9: Right to Security and Protection from Arbitrary Detention

• Ukrainians under temporary protection have no legal certainty regarding their future status, violating the right to legal security and protection from arbitrary decisions.

• Article 26: Equality Before the Law

• Ukrainians under temporary protection receive fewer rights than other refugees, violating the principle of equal treatment under the law.

 

4.11.5. Violations of the UN Convention Against Torture (1984)

• Article 1: Definition of Torture

• Constant uncertainty, fear of deportation, and legal limbo create chronic psychological pressure, which could be classified as psychological coercion, prohibited under the convention.

• Article 16: Obligation to Prevent Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment

• Legal and social instability faced by individuals under temporary protection could be seen as a form of inhuman treatment, especially if used as a mechanism of indirect coercion.

 

4.11.6. Violations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

• Article 7(1)(h): Persecution Based on Political or National Identity

• Selective denials of temporary protection to Ukrainian men of military age could amount to political persecution, if done under pressure from external authorities.

• Article 7(1)(k): Inhumane Acts as Crimes Against Humanity

• Psychological coercion through the threat of forced return, legal uncertainty, and economic dependency could constitute inhumane treatment under international law.

 

4.12. Violations of National Criminal Laws and Constitutional Norms in EU Countries

The temporary protection policy introduced in the EU for Ukrainian refugees not only contradicts international law but also violates national criminal laws and constitutional norms of various member states. The unequal legal status, restrictive administrative measures, and hostile rhetoric by officials and public figures create a system of discrimination that leads to legal uncertainty, marginalization, and potential criminal liability under EU and national laws.

This section presents specific cases of discrimination, analyzing their compliance with constitutional principles and potential criminal violations under national legislation.

 

4.12.1. Austria: eXXpress Article Targeting Ukrainian Refugees

Case Description:

On August 21, 2023, Austrian media outlet eXXpress published an article falsely accusing Ukrainian male refugeesof military draft evasion and questioning their right to protection. The article directly linked Ukrainian men to fraudulent asylum claims, creating public hostility against them.

By framing Ukrainian men as draft dodgers, eXXpress violated Austrian laws against incitement to hatred and created a hostile environment, increasing xenophobia and social exclusion.

 

Criminal Violations:

• Article 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Incitement to Hatred): The article’s tone and content incited hatred against Ukrainian men, encouraging negative stereotypes and public animosity.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• Article 7 of the Austrian Constitution (Equality Before the Law): The article discriminated against Ukrainian men, treating them differently from other refugee groups.

• Article 14 ECHR (Prohibition of Discrimination): The dissemination of discriminatory rhetoric violates Austria’s commitments under European human rights law.

Source: eXXpress, August 21, 2023

 

4.12.2. Germany: Alexander Dobrindt’s Call for Forced Return of Refugees

Case Description:

On June 23, 2024, German politician Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) publicly stated that Ukrainian refugees should be sent back to Ukraine if they fail to find employment. This statement, made in an interview with Bild am Sonntag, targets a specific group of refugees and justifies economic coercion as a tool of migration policy, contradicting Germany’s constitutional protections and criminalizing vulnerable populations based on their nationality.

Dobrindt’s rhetoric portrays Ukrainians as a financial burden, fueling hostility and creating a foundation for exclusion and discrimination, which is punishable under German criminal law.

 

Criminal Violations:

• § 130 StGB (Incitement to Hatred): His public statement contributes to the creation of hostility toward a specific nationality, violating laws against incitement to hatred.

• § 241 StGB (Threats): The threat of forced return without due legal procedure creates psychological pressure on refugees, violating their personal security rights.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• Grundgesetz Article 1 (Human Dignity): The proposal to deport Ukrainians treats them as disposable labor, violating their right to dignity.

• Grundgesetz Article 3 (Equality Before the Law): Ukrainians receive worse treatment compared to other refugee groups, violating constitutional principles of equal treatment.

Source: Bild am Sonntag, June 23, 2024

4.12.3. Germany: Ulrich Reitz’s Defamatory Remarks on Ukrainian Refugees

Case Description:

On December 24, 2023, Ulrich Reitz, chief correspondent for the German magazine Focus, made controversial remarks (4:01 min) about Ukrainian refugees, particularly men of conscription age, suggesting that they should be returned to Ukraine. He claimed that over half of Ukrainian refugees in Germany failed to pass the basic language exam and that their employment rates were lower compared to other refugee groups. Reitz implied that Ukrainian refugees were becoming overly dependent on social benefits and that Germany should reconsider its stance, including the potential forced return of draft-age men.

His statements contribute to the stigmatization of Ukrainian refugees, portraying them as unworthy of protection and economic support, thus fostering social hostility and reinforcing xenophobic sentiment. This narrative risks justifying discriminatory policies and undermines Germany’s legal obligations to uphold the rights of displaced persons.

 

Criminal Violations:

• § 130 StGB (Incitement to Hatred) – Reitz’s statements promote negative stereotypes about Ukrainian refugees, contributing to an atmosphere of hostility and discrimination.

• § 241 StGB (Threats) – The suggestion that Ukrainian refugees, particularly men, should be forcibly returned creates psychological pressure and fear, violating their right to personal security.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• Grundgesetz Article 1 (Human Dignity) – The characterization of Ukrainian refugees as economic burdens undermines their dignity and disregards their status as individuals seeking protection.

• Grundgesetz Article 3 (Equality Before the Law) – Singling out Ukrainians for criticism while not applying the same standards to other refugee groups constitutes discriminatory treatment based on nationality.

 

4.12.4. Estonia: MEP Jaak Madison’s Derogatory Remarks on Ukrainian Refugees

Case Description:

During a European Parliament session in 2024, MEP Jaak Madison (Estonia) referred to Ukrainian refugees as “cowards”, suggesting that they were avoiding military service instead of fighting for their country. This public attack vilified a specific refugee group, fostering resentment and prejudice in Estonian society.

His statements openly question the legitimacy of Ukrainian refugees, implying that their asylum claims are fraudulent and that they should not receive protection. Such rhetoric contributes to incitement to hatred and violates Estonia’s legal protections against discrimination.

 

Criminal Violations:

• Article 151 of the Estonian Penal Code (Incitement to Hatred): His remarks fostered hostility toward Ukrainian refugees, promoting discrimination and exclusion.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• Estonian Constitution Article 12 (Equality Before the Law): The statement actively supports differential treatment based on nationality.

• EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 1, Human Dignity): The degrading nature of his remarks violates the fundamental principles of human dignity.

Source: European Parliament Records, 2024

 

4.12.5. Poland: General Waldemar Skrzypczak Advocates for Ukrainian Deportations

Case Description:

Polish General Waldemar Skrzypczak publicly proposed that Poland should assist Ukraine in deporting Ukrainian refugees, exposing them to forced military conscription. This statement calls for the direct return of refugees to a conflict zone, in violation of EU and Polish legal protections.

By actively promoting deportation without due legal process, Skrzypczak openly violated non-refoulement principles and encouraged discrimination.

 

Criminal Violations:

• Polish Criminal Code (Article 256, Incitement to Hatred): The statement publicly incited discrimination against Ukrainian refugees.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• 1951 Refugee Convention (Article 33, Non-Refoulement): The proposal to deport Ukrainian refugees violates international refugee protections.

• Polish Constitution Article 32 (Equality Before the Law): The targeted discrimination against Ukrainianscontradicts Poland’s constitutional principles.

Source: Gazeta.pl, 2024

4.12.6. Poland: Minister of National Defense Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz Advocates for the Repatriation of Ukrainian Men

Case Description:

On April 25, 2024, during an interview with Polsat News, Polish Minister of National Defense Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz publicly expressed Poland’s willingness to assist Ukraine in the repatriation of Ukrainian men of conscription age who had taken refuge in Poland. He stated that many Polish citizens were frustrated by the presence of young Ukrainian men in Poland’s hotels and cafes while Poland itself was making significant efforts to support Ukraine. Kosiniak-Kamysz emphasized that Poland had already proposed aiding Ukraine in returning these individuals to fulfill their “civic duty.”

When asked about the specifics of Poland’s assistance in repatriation efforts, he responded:

“Any form of support is possible.”

This statement raised serious legal and human rights concerns, as it suggested Poland’s willingness to forcibly return individuals to a conflict zone, potentially against their will. The proposal directly contradicts international and Polish legal protections that prohibit the deportation of individuals facing war-related dangers.

 

Criminal Violations:

• Article 256 of the Polish Criminal Code (Incitement to Hatred)

• Publicly advocating for the repatriation of a specific national group based on nationality, thereby encouraging discrimination and potential coercion.

• Article 189 of the Polish Criminal Code (Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty)

• Any actions leading to the forced return of individuals without their consent and due legal process could constitute a violation of their right to freedom.

• Article 231 of the Polish Criminal Code (Abuse of Power by Public Officials)

• If Polish authorities act outside legal frameworks to facilitate the forced return of Ukrainian men, this could amount to abuse of power.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• Article 32 of the Polish Constitution (Equality Before the Law)

• Singling out Ukrainian men for repatriation constitutes discriminatory treatment based on nationality, violating Poland’s constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.

• Article 37 of the Polish Constitution (Protection of Rights of Foreigners in Poland)

• Foreigners lawfully residing in Poland are entitled to protection under the law, and their rights cannot be arbitrarily restricted or revoked.

• Article 56 of the Polish Constitution (Right to Asylum and Protection Against Deportation)

• The forced repatriation of Ukrainian men would violate their right to seek and enjoy asylum in Poland.

Source:

• Polsat News, April 25, 2024 

 

4.12.7. Sweden: Elaf Ali’s Derogatory Comments on Ukrainian Women

Case Description:

During a broadcast on Swedish State Television (SVT), journalist Elaf Ali made an offensive remark, stating that Ukrainian women are “only visible in brothels.”

Her derogatory statement contributed to public humiliation, reinforcing negative stereotypes and social exclusion, violating Swedish and EU anti-discrimination laws.

 

Criminal Violations:

• Swedish Penal Code, Chapter 16, Section 8 (Defamation and Insult): Publicly degrading a group based on nationality and gender is punishable under Swedish law.

• EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 21, Non-Discrimination): The statement openly reinforces discriminatory gender-based stereotypes.

 

Constitutional Violations:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 20): Public incitement to discrimination violates Sweden’s human rights obligations.

• Swedish Constitution (Instrument of Government, Chapter 2, Article 12): The statement contradicts Sweden’s constitutional protection against discrimination.

Source: Visegrád 24, 2024

 

4.12.8. Final Observations:

The analyzed cases demonstrate systemic violations of national criminal laws and constitutional principles in Germany, Austria, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden. These incidents reflect a pattern of discriminatory policies, public rhetoric justifying unequal treatment, and hostility toward Ukrainian refugees.

These violations require urgent legal scrutiny and enforcement of national and EU human rights laws to prevent further institutionalized discrimination and ensure compliance with fundamental protections.

 

4.13. Conclusion

The analysis of violations of national criminal laws and constitutional norms in EU countries demonstrates that discrimination against Ukrainian refugees has become systemic. Political statements, administrative decisions, and media narratives contribute to their marginalization, undermine legal protection, and create conditions for social hostility.

Despite clear violations of equality principles, non-discrimination, and refugee protection, none of the responsible individuals have faced any consequences. European institutions and national authorities have failed to take action to hold accountable those promoting hostile rhetoric or implementing unlawful restrictions against Ukrainians.

The lack of response to these violations undermines the legal principles of the EU, calls into question its international commitments, and legitimizes discriminatory practices. Urgent measures are needed to ensure equal protection status, prevent discrimination, and uphold fundamental legal norms.

5. United Kingdom (Homes for Ukraine, Ukraine Family Scheme)

5.1. Introduction

The United Kingdom introduced two primary schemes to accommodate displaced Ukrainians: Homes for Ukraine and Ukraine Family Scheme. However, these programs do not grant full refugee status, which places Ukrainians in a legally precarious position compared to other asylum seekers who receive full refugee protections.

This section analyzes the disparities between these schemes and refugee protections under UK and international law, highlighting legal inconsistencies and violations.

5.2. Duration and Stability of Status

Refugee Status in the UK:

• 5-year protection with automatic renewal.

• Eligibility for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after 5 years.

• Eligibility for UK citizenship after 6 years under the British Nationality Act 1981 and Immigration Rules Part 11.

 

Ukrainians under Temporary Protection:

• Limited to 3 years, expiring in March 2025 (UK Home Office).

• No automatic renewal.

• No pathway to ILR or citizenship, requiring an alternative visa (e.g., Skilled Worker Visa, requiring a £38,700 annual salary).

• 6,400 Ukrainian households are projected to face homelessness by 2025 when sponsorships end (British Red Cross, 2025).

Without an extension, Ukrainians risk deportation or legal limbo.

 

5.3. Access to the Labor Market

Refugee Status:

• Unrestricted access to the UK labor market under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

• Eligible for Refugee Employability Programme.

•  

Ukrainians under Temporary Protection:

• Permitted to work, but housing instability limits job mobility.

• Excluded from refugee-specific employment programs.

• 40% lose their sponsor-provided housing within six months, disrupting employment stability (British Red Cross, 2023).

5.4. Access to Social Services and Healthcare

Refugee Status:

• Full NHS access.

• Comprehensive housing and financial support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

• Additional aid for children and vulnerable individuals.

Ukrainians under Temporary Protection:

• Granted NHS access, but face bureaucratic barriers (e.g., registration delays, language difficulties).

• Financial assistance is 40% lower than Afghan refugees receive under the Afghan Relocations Scheme (Home Office estimate).

• No government-provided alternative housing, creating a homelessness risk (The Guardian, 2024).

5.5. Family Reunification Rights

Refugee Status:

• Full rights to reunite with spouses, children, and dependents under Immigration Rules Part 11.

Ukrainians under Temporary Protection:

• Family reunification is only possible if family members arrive simultaneously (UK Home Office).

• Cannot sponsor family members post-arrival, unlike recognized refugees.

5.6. Freedom of Movement and Passport Rights

Refugee Status:

• Issued Refugee Travel Documents.

• Cannot return to their country of origin.

Ukrainians under Temporary Protection:

• Retain Ukrainian passports and can return to Ukraine without losing their status.

• Men aged 18-60 face conscription risks due to Ukraine’s Law No. 3632-IX (2024) on mobilization.

• UK does not explicitly protect against extradition requests, raising legal concerns (The Guardian, 2024).

5.7. Legal Violations

57.1. Violations of the 1951 Refugee Convention

• Article 1(A)(2) – Denial of refugee status despite meeting criteria.

• Article 3 – Discriminatory treatment compared to other refugees.

• Article 31 – Sponsorship requirements effectively penalize irregular entry.

• Article 33 – Risk of deportation after 2025 violates non-refoulement.

• Article 34 – No pathway to permanent residency or naturalization.

5.7.2. Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

• Article 3 – Deportation risk constitutes inhumane treatment.

• Article 6 – No legal recourse for post-2025 deportation.

• Article 8 – Family reunification restrictions violate private and family life.

• Article 14 – Unequal treatment compared to other refugees (e.g., Afghans).

• Article 13 – No effective remedy for rights violations.

5.7.3. Violations of UK Law

• Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory access to housing, benefits, and employment.

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Public authorities fail to uphold ECHR obligations.

• Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 – Inadequate welfare support.

5.8. Legal Precedents Supporting Violations

1. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989)

• ECHR Application No. 14038/88

• Ruling: Extradition to a country where an individual faces inhumane treatment violates Article 3 ECHR.

• Relevance: Applies to potential extradition of Ukrainians.

2. R (AM) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2022)

• Ruling: Temporary schemes fail to provide stability required for asylum seekers.

5.9. Conclusion and Key Takeaways

• No pathway to ILR or citizenship.

• 6,400 Ukrainian households face homelessness by 2025 (British Red Cross, 2025).

• Financial assistance 40% lower than for Afghan refugees (Home Office).

• No family reunification post-arrival.

• Extradition risks for conscription-age men.

• 18 legal violations undermine UK’s human rights commitments.

The UK’s approach to Ukrainian refugees creates legal uncertainty, economic hardship, and potential deportation risks.

 

6. USA (Uniting for Ukraine- U4U, and Temporary Protected Status, TPS) 

The United States introduced two primary programs for Ukrainian refugees: Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). However, both programs provide only temporary protection and do not grant refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Unlike other refugees, Ukrainians remain in legal limbo, with no pathway to citizenship or permanent residency (Green Card). Moreover, public deportation threats create psychological pressure, which may be classified as a violation of international law.

 

6.1. Programs for Other Refugees (Afghans, Venezuelans, Cubans)

• Afghans:

• Receive Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) with a direct path to a Green Card source.

• Full access to the labor market without the need for a sponsor source.

• Access to medical insurance and social benefits source.

• Venezuelans and Cubans:

• Receive TPS with automatic renewal.

• The right to work without requiring a sponsor.

• Access to basic social benefits and medical insurance.

 

6.2. Programs for Ukrainians (Uniting for Ukraine, TPS)

• Uniting for Ukraine (U4U):

• Humanitarian parole for two years without a guarantee of renewal.

• Mandatory sponsorship – entry into the U.S. is impossible without a financially stable sponsor.

• No automatic right to work (work authorization must be applied for separately).

• No path to a Green Card or citizenship.

• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukrainians:

• Temporary status for 18 months (extended until October 2026).

• No automatic renewal – each administration makes independent decisions source.

• No right to a Green Card or citizenship.

• Risk of deportation after 2026.

 

6.3. Differences and Discrimination

6.3.1. Ukrainians cannot obtain a Green Card, unlike Afghans, Cubans, and Venezuelans.

6.3.2. Uniting for Ukraine requires a mandatory sponsor, which is not required for other refugee groups.

6.3.3. 240,000 Ukrainians are at risk of deportation in 2025.

6.3.4. Venezuelans receive automatic TPS renewals, while Ukrainians do not have such guarantees .

6.3.5. Ukrainians face public intimidation and deportation threats from politicians, creating psychological pressure.

 

Example of Discrimination:

• In 2024, the U.S. State Department announced that TPS for Ukrainians might not be extended after 2025.

• The media spread rumors about mass deportations of Ukrainians, causing stress and destabilization.

• Meanwhile, TPS for Venezuelans was automatically extended until 2026.

 

6.4. Violations of International Law

The U.S. has signed key international treaties related to refugee protection and human rights. Despite withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, the U.S. remains a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and other human rights agreements.

 

6.4.1.  951 Refugee Convention:

• Article 1(A)(2) – Ukrainians meet the definition of refugees but are not granted refugee status.

• Article 3 – Discrimination based on nationality, as other refugees (Afghans, Cubans) have a path to Green Card.

• Article 33 – The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits deportation to conflict zones, is violated by deportation threats.

 

6.4.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966):

• Article 7 – Intimidation with deportation constitutes psychological abuse.

• Article 9 – Legal uncertainty violates the right to personal security.

• Article 26 – Discrimination before the law.

 

6.4.3. UN Convention Against Torture (1984):

• Article 1 – Systematic deportation threats, creating chronic fear, constitute a form of psychological torture.

• Precedent: Gäfgen v. Germany (2010, ECHR) – Stress caused by fear of punishment qualifies as psychological torture.

• Precedent: INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987, U.S. Supreme Court) – The U.S. is obligated to provide protection if there is a well-founded fear of persecution.

 

6.5. Public Threats and Their Impact

Rumors and statements by senior U.S. officials create artificial stress and instability among Ukrainian refugees.

• In 2024, Donald Trump stated he would revoke temporary protection for Ukrainians if re-elected.

• Elon Musk posted on X (Twitter) that the U.S. is not obligated to accept Ukrainians, increasing panic among refugees.

• The U.S. State Department issued contradictory statements about possible changes to Ukrainians’ status in 2025.

 

6.6. Psychological Pressure as a Form of Torture:

The mere fact that thousands of people live in a state of uncertainty and fear can be regarded as a form of psychological violence.

 

6.7. Conclusion

6.7.1. Ukrainians are subjected to discrimination, as they do not have access to Green Card, unlike other refugee groups.

6.7.2. The refusal to extend TPS for Ukrainians, while Venezuelans receive automatic extensions, is a selective policy.

6.7.3. Public threats and rumors about deportations create psychological pressure, which can be classified as a human rights violation.

6.7.4. Intimidation and legal uncertainty violate the 1951 Refugee Convention, ICCPR, and UN Convention Against Torture.

 

7. Canada (CUAET) – Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel 

Canada introduced the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) as a special temporary measure to accommodate displaced Ukrainians. This program provides temporary status, allowing visa holders to travel, study, and work within Canada for up to three years. However, it does not grant refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention, nor does it offer a clear path to permanent residency or citizenship. Compared to other refugee groups, Ukrainians under CUAET face significant legal and structural disadvantages.

 

7.1. Duration and Stability of Status

Refugee status in Canada provides permanent residency upon arrival, leading to citizenship in approximately five years.

Ukrainians under CUAET, however:

• Receive temporary status for up to three years, which does not automatically renew.

• Do not receive permanent residency upon arrival.

• Have no guaranteed legal pathway to remain in Canada.

When CUAET expires, Ukrainian nationals must apply for alternative visa programs, which have strict eligibility requirements and do not guarantee continued legal stay. This creates legal uncertainty and potential risks of deportation (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): link).

 

7.2. Access to the Labor Market

Refugees in Canada have full and unrestricted access to the labor market, including:

• The ability to work without employer restrictions.

• Access to career development programs and employment assistance.

• Legal protections under permanent resident employment regulations.

Ukrainians under CUAET:

• Require a work permit, which is not granted automatically upon arrival.

• Face employment restrictions, as many employers hesitate to hire individuals with temporary status.

• Are ineligible for permanent residency-based employment programs (Canada’s Employment and Social Development Department: link).

 

7.3. Access to Social Services and Healthcare

Refugees in Canada are entitled to:

• Comprehensive public healthcare coverage.

• Full access to federal and provincial social benefits.

• Long-term housing support and financial assistance.

Ukrainians under CUAET:

• Do not have guaranteed free healthcare—access depends on provincial regulations.

• Receive lower social benefits than refugees (Canadian Council for Refugees: link).

• Are ineligible for long-term housing assistance, as CUAET is a temporary program (Government of Canada: link).

 

7.4. Family Reunification Rights

Refugees in Canada have the right to sponsor family members, including spouses, children, and dependent relatives.

Ukrainians under CUAET:

• Cannot sponsor family members once they arrive in Canada.

• Family reunification is only possible if all members apply together.

• Are excluded from sponsorship programs available to refugees (IRCC: link).

 

7.5. Path to Citizenship

Refugees in Canada:

• Receive permanent residency upon arrival.

• Can apply for citizenship after five years.

Ukrainians under CUAET:

• Have no path to permanent residency through CUAET.

• Must apply for alternative visas, which do not guarantee citizenship.

• Face potential deportation if they fail to secure an alternative status (Canadian Immigration and Citizenship: link).

 

7.6. Protection from Deportation and Extradition

Refugees in Canada are protected under international law from deportation to unsafe conditions.

Ukrainians under CUAET:

• Have no long-term guarantee of protection after CUAET expires.

• Could face deportation if they fail to qualify for another visa.

• Are not automatically shielded from extradition requests from Ukraine, raising concerns about politically motivated legal actions (Canadian Human Rights Commission: link).

 

7.7. Violations of International Law

The discriminatory treatment of Ukrainians under CUAET violates multiple international human rights agreements:

 

7.7.1. 1951 Refugee Convention

• Article 1(A)(2) – Denial of refugee status despite meeting the criteria.

• Article 3 – Discriminatory treatment compared to other refugees.

• Article 34 – Lack of support for naturalization and permanent residency.

 

7.7.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)

• Article 7 – The uncertainty and legal instability create psychological pressure.

• Article 9 – Legal insecurity violates the right to personal safety.

• Article 26 – Discrimination in legal rights and protections.

 

7.7.3. UN Convention Against Torture (1984)

• Article 1 – Psychological coercion through legal uncertainty and threats of deportation.

• Article 16 – Obligation to prevent degrading treatment through unstable migration policies.

 

7.7.4 Canadian Legal Precedents

• Singh v. Canada (1985) – Established that Canada must provide fair refugee protection and due process. Ukrainians under CUAET face legal uncertainty and no guaranteed protections, contradicting this ruling.

• Kanthasamy v. Canada (2015) – Affirmed that humanitarian considerations must be applied fairly. The temporary and uncertain nature of CUAET violates this principle.

• Baker v. Canada (1999) – Stressed the importance of fair administrative procedures in immigration decisions. The lack of transparency in CUAET extensions raises concerns.

 

7.8. Conclusion

Canada’s approach to Ukrainian refugees under CUAET creates a two-tier system, where Ukrainians receive fewer rights and weaker protections than other refugees.

 

7.9. Key Takeaways:

• CUAET does not provide a path to permanent residency or citizenship.

• Legal uncertainty after 2025 puts thousands at risk of deportation.

• Social benefits for Ukrainians are significantly lower than those for recognized refugees.

• Family reunification is severely restricted compared to other refugee groups.

• Extradition risks for politically motivated charges remain a concern.

• Canada’s policy contradicts international human rights agreements.

 

Canada’s differential treatment of Ukrainians under CUAET violates multiple international treaties and raises serious concerns about discriminatory migration policies, requiring urgent legal and policy reform.

 

 

8. Switzerland (S Status) – Legal Discrimination Against Ukrainians Under Temporary Protection

Switzerland introduced S Status (Schutzstatus S) in March 2022 as an emergency response to the displacement caused by the conflict in Ukraine. However, unlike traditional refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention, S Status does not provide permanent residency, a direct path to citizenship, or full refugee rights.

This section analyzes the legal disparities between S Status and standard refugee protections in Switzerland, highlighting systemic discrimination, legal uncertainty, and potential violations of international law.

8.1. Duration and Stability of Status

Refugee Status in Switzerland

• Grants permanent residency (B permit) upon approval (source).

• Leads to Swiss citizenship after 10 years of residence (source).

• Protection remains valid regardless of political decisions.

 

S Status for Ukrainians

• Temporary status, reviewed annually, with no guarantee of renewal (source).

• No direct path to permanent residency or citizenship (source).

• Revocable at any time based on Swiss migration policies (source).

• At risk of forced return after authorities deem the situation in Ukraine “safe” (source).

Unlike refugees, Ukrainians under S Status are left in legal limbo, with no certainty about their long-term stay.

 

8.2. Access to Employment and Economic Security

Refugee Status in Switzerland

• Full and unrestricted access to the job market (source).

• Same labor rights as Swiss citizens (equal pay, contracts, job security).

• Access to integration programs that support professional development.

 

S Status for Ukrainians

• Restricted employment access—each job requires approval from cantonal authorities (source).

• Employers often hesitate to hire, given the temporary nature of S Status (source).

• No structured long-term employment support like refugees receive (source).

The requirement for separate work permits per job creates economic instability, preventing Ukrainians from securing long-term employment.

 

8.3. Access to Social Services and Healthcare

Refugee Status in Switzerland

• Full access to Swiss social benefits, including unemployment aid (source).

• Free mandatory health insurance (KVG/LAMal) fully covered by the state (source).

• Housing assistance and integration support programs.

 

S Status for Ukrainians

• Limited financial aid, significantly lower than refugee benefits (source).

• Health insurance is not fully covered—some cantons require Ukrainians to pay part of the costs (source).

• Housing assistance is temporary and varies by canton (source).

The unequal social protections create additional economic pressure on Ukrainians, forcing many to rely on private resources.

 

8.4. Family Reunification Rights

Refugee Status in Switzerland

• Full family reunification rights for spouses and children (source).

• No strict deadlines for applying—relatives can join at any time.

 

S Status for Ukrainians

• Family reunification only for nuclear family members (spouse, minor children) (source).

• Application for family reunification must be submitted within 90 days of receiving S Status (source).

• No option to reunite with extended family (parents, siblings, adult children) (source).

This rigid deadline creates severe disadvantages for Ukrainian families compared to refugees.

 

8.5. Violations of International Law

 

8.5.1.  1951 Refugee Convention

• Article 34 – Denial of support for permanent residency and naturalization (source).

 

8.5.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)

• Article 26 – Discrimination in legal status and rights compared to refugees (source).

 

8.5.3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

• Article 3 – Psychological stress from legal uncertainty and risk of deportation (source).

• Article 8 – Restrictions on family reunification violate the right to private and family life (source).

• Article 14 – Unequal treatment compared to refugees (source).

 

8.6. Swiss Legal Precedents

• M. v. Switzerland (1994, ECHR) – Switzerland must ensure equal protection for all asylum seekers (source).

• Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy (2012, ECHR) – Non-refoulement applies to all persons seeking protection (source).

 

8.7. Conclusion

• S Status does not provide permanent residency, citizenship, or full refugee rights.

• Ukrainians face legal uncertainty, with no guaranteed stay beyond annual renewals.

• Significant disparities in employment, social benefits, and legal protections exist compared to refugees.

• No guaranteed protection from deportation or extradition after S Status ends.

• Switzerland’s selective approach raises concerns about compliance with international refugee protection norms.

 

9. Australia (Subclass 786 Temporary Humanitarian Concern Visa, Bridging Visas, Refugee Visas)

 

9.1 Programs for Refugees (Permanent Humanitarian Program)

Refugees accepted under Australia’s Permanent Humanitarian Program are granted:

• Permanent residency (PR) upon arrival.

• Immediate access to full work rights without restrictions.

• Full access to Medicare (public healthcare system).

• Eligibility for Centrelink (social benefits and financial assistance).

• Pathway to Australian citizenship after four years of residency.

• Right to sponsor family members for reunification.

 

9.2. Programs for Ukrainians (Temporary Humanitarian Concern Visa, Bridging Visas)

Subclass 786 Temporary Humanitarian Concern Visa:

• Initially granted for three years, set to expire in July 2025.

• No automatic renewal beyond 2025.

• Does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship.

• Limited access to social welfare benefits.

• Medicare access is available, but subject to review.

• Restrictions on family reunification unless processed under a separate visa.

 

9.3. Bridging Visas:

• Temporary visas allowing Ukrainians to remain in Australia while seeking an alternative legal status.

• Do not provide guaranteed access to social services or long-term protection.

• No clear pathway to permanent residency.

 

9.4. Differences and Discrimination

• Ukrainians under the Temporary Humanitarian Concern Visa do not receive permanent residency, unlike other refugees.

• No direct pathway to citizenship, whereas refugees can apply after four years.

• Ukrainian visa holders face legal uncertainty as their status is temporary and subject to policy changes.

• Limited financial support and social benefits, whereas refugees under the humanitarian program have full access.

• Restrictions on family reunification for Ukrainians, unlike refugees who have more extensive rights.

 

9.5. Legal Violations and Precedents

 

9.5.1  1951 Refugee Convention:

• Article 1(A)(2) – Ukrainians meet the refugee definition but do not receive refugee status.

• Article 3 – Discrimination based on nationality, as other refugees receive PR and full protections.

• Article 34 – No support for integration or naturalization.

 

9.5.2.  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966):

• Article 7 – Legal uncertainty and risk of deportation create psychological pressure, violating protections against inhumane treatment.

• Article 26 – Unequal treatment before the law.

• UN Convention Against Torture (1984):

• Article 1 – The fear of deportation and lack of legal stability create chronic stress, potentially constituting psychological coercionю

 

9.6.  Australian High Court Precedents:

• Plaintiff M61/2010E v. Commonwealth (2010) – Confirmed that asylum seekers must be given proper legal avenues to contest their status.

• Al-Kateb v. Godwin (2004) – Addressed indefinite detention and the legal rights of non-citizens under Australian law.

 

9.7. Conclusion:

• Ukrainians in Australia are granted only temporary protection without long-term security, while other refugee groups receive permanent residency.

• No pathway to citizenship, despite meeting refugee criteria.

• Limited access to financial support and public services compared to other refugees.

• Uncertainty regarding renewal beyond 2025 creates legal and psychological instability.

• The system creates a two-tier refugee structure, raising concerns about discrimination and human rights violations.

 

10. Expert and Human Rights Opinions on Temporary Protection for Refugees

Experts in migration law, international law, and refugee rights express serious concerns about the temporary protection system implemented in various countries. Key issues include legal uncertainty, discrimination, human rights violations, and the potential misuse of temporary protection mechanisms by governments to bypass international obligations.

 

10.1. Limited Access to Rights and Social Services

Professor James C. Hathaway (University of Michigan Law School, source), a leading expert on refugee law, emphasizes that temporary protection often results in refugees receiving significantly fewer rights and opportunities compared to those granted full asylum status. He highlights that in many countries, individuals under temporary protection face restrictions in accessing social benefits and healthcare services, barriers in the labor market—including the need for special work permits—and insufficient access to integration and adaptation programs. Hathaway notes that such limitations undermine the fundamental principles of refugee protection established in the 1951 Refugee Convention.

 

10.2. Lack of Long-Term Stability and Legal Uncertainty

Philippe De Bruycker (Université libre de Bruxelles, source), an expert in asylum and immigration law, points out that temporary status often does not guarantee renewal and does not provide a pathway to permanent residency. This results in millions of displaced persons living in a state of uncertainty, unable to plan their future. He stresses that this contradicts the principles of durable solutions in international refugee protection, which aim to ensure long-term stability for displaced persons rather than leaving them in legal limbo.

 

10.3. Psychological Pressure and the Threat of Deportation

Dr. Jeff Crisp (Chatham House, former UNHCR Head of Policy Development, source), argues that the constant uncertainty surrounding temporary protection creates psychological distress among displaced persons. He highlights that public threats of deportation, inconsistent government statements, and the lack of clear policies contribute to chronic stress, which can be considered a form of psychological coercion under international law. He further notes that reports of certain countries refusing to extend temporary protection for military-age men add an additional layer of fear and insecurity, raising potential violations of the non-refoulementprinciple under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

 

10.4. Discriminatory Nature of Temporary Protection Policies

Catherine Woollard (Director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, source), criticizes the selective application of temporary protection, noting that different nationalities receive vastly different levels of support. She highlights that while some refugees are granted long-term asylum with a clear pathway to citizenship, others—such as Ukrainians—are placed under a separate, inferior category with no guarantee of permanent status. This, she argues, creates a two-tiered refugee system that is discriminatory in nature and violates Article 3 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits discrimination based on nationality.

 

10.5. Lack of Legal Remedies and Violation of International Law

Dr. Madeline Garlick (UNHCR Senior Advisor on Asylum, source), points out that individuals under temporary protection often lack effective legal recourse to challenge decisions affecting their status. She emphasizes that in many cases, there are no clear appeal mechanisms for those who are denied protection renewal, leaving them vulnerable to potential deportation. This, she asserts, violates Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)(the right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy).

 

10.6. Conclusion

Leading experts in refugee law and human rights have identified serious shortcomings in the temporary protection system. These include restricted access to rights, legal instability, psychological distress caused by uncertainty, and potential discrimination. The system’s structural flaws not only create long-term hardship for those under temporary protection but also raise concerns about compliance with international legal standards. Experts emphasize that unless reforms are made to provide long-term stability and equal rights, temporary protection risks becoming a mechanism of exclusion rather than protection.

 

11. Psychological Pressure and Threat of Deportation as a Form of Torture

 

Ukrainians under temporary protection face not only legal discrimination but also systematic psychological pressure due to constant threats of deportation. This creates chronic stress and uncertainty, which can be classified as a form of inhuman treatment and even psychological torture under international law.

 

13.1. Definition of Psychological Torture in International Law

According to the UN Convention Against Torture (1984, Article 1), torture includes the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for purposes such as intimidation or coercion source. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also considers psychological pressure as inhuman treatment if it leads to significant suffering source.

 

11.2. Legal Precedents

• Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – The threat of extradition to a country where a person might face inhumane treatment was ruled a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

• Dikme v. Turkey (2000) – Prolonged detention in a state of uncertainty was recognized as inhumane treatment.

• M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011) – The creation of unbearable conditions for refugees, including the threat of deportation, was ruled a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

 

11.3. How Deportation Threats Create Chronic Stress

Western countries, by providing Ukrainians with temporary protection instead of full refugee status, create a situation of legal instability. Ukrainians are uncertain about their future after the programs end in 2025–2026. In the EU, temporary protection status has been extended only until March 2026 source, while in the USA, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) programs are set to conclude in 2025, placing 240,000 Ukrainians at risk of deportation source.

 

Facts:

• 70% of Ukrainians in the EU experience anxiety and depression due to status instability source.

• 15% of Ukrainians in the USA have already received notices of possible deportation in 2025 source.

• 40% of Ukrainians in the UK risk becoming homeless after the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship program ends source.

 

Thus, deportation threats are not abstract—they are systematic and impact individuals’ mental well-being. This aligns with criteria for inhuman treatment and violates international legal norms.

 

11.4. Violations of International Law

11.4.1. UN Convention Against Torture (1984, Article 1): Systematic intimidation through deportation threats can be classified as a form of psychological torture source.

11.4.2. European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3): Creating an atmosphere of fear violates the prohibition against inhuman treatment source.

11.4.3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7): Deportation threats cause suffering comparable to cruel treatment source.

11.4.4. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7(1)(k)): Inhumane acts causing severe mental suffering can be classified as crimes against humanity source.

 

12. Historical Parallels with the Holocaust and the Discrimination Against Ukrainians

 

The discrimination against Ukrainians under temporary protection shares historical parallels that cannot be ignored.

 

13. Ukrainians as Victims of the Holocaust

 

During World War II, the Nazi regime carried out mass extermination of the population in Ukraine, regardless of ethnic background. Jews who perished in the Holocaust on Ukrainian territory were not only Jews but also Ukrainians by territorial origin. They were not considered separately as Ukrainian citizens but were part of the broader Ukrainian population that fell victim to genocide.

 

Facts:

• Out of six million Holocaust victims, approximately 1.5 million were murdered on the territory of Ukraine (Yad Vashem, 2024).

• Repressions against Ukrainians included not only Jews but also other groups, such as intellectuals, clergy, and prisoners of war (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2024).

 

13.1. The Repetition of History

 

Today, Ukrainians are once again not distinguished by ethnic identity but are discriminated against based on territorial origin. This mirrors historical patterns: just as the Nazis did not differentiate between Ukrainian Jews and non-Jews, the West today does not differentiate among Ukrainians of different ethnic backgrounds when imposing discriminatory restrictions under temporary protection.

14. Conclusions and Demands

The current treatment of Ukrainians under temporary protection mechanisms in various countries demonstrates systemic legal inconsistencies, legal uncertainty, and discriminatory administrative decisions. The denial of refugee status, threats of deportation, and unequal treatment compared to other displaced groups violate the international obligations of host states.

 

14.1.1. Recognition of Ukrainians as full-status refugees. Temporary protection cannot substitute for refugee status as defined in Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR).

14.1.2. Prohibition of deportation to a conflict zone. The threat of forced return of Ukrainians contradicts the principle of non-refoulement established in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR).

14.1.3. Exclusion of funding for repressive structures in Ukraine. International financial assistance should not be used for salaries or maintenance of structures such as the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCC), police, or Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which engage in forced conscription and persecution of citizens. States and international organizations providing aid to Ukraine should include conditions to prevent its use for repressive purposes.

14.1.4. Investigation of discriminatory policies toward Ukrainians. The UN, ECHR, and other international bodies must conduct a legal assessment of temporary protection mechanisms and their compliance with international refugee protection standards.

14.1.5. Compensation for legal uncertainty and psychological harm. The temporary status has led to stressful conditions and legal instability, requiring legal and financial remedies in accordance with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

This document confirms that temporary protection, in its current form, does not provide full protection but is used as a tool of control and restriction of rights, requiring immediate revision.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This document is regularly updated as new data, legal facts, and analyses emerge. All information used in its preparation comes from open sources, making every fact easily verifiable. However, some links may become inactive over time, as content is sometimes removed, and we cannot guarantee their continuous availability. Despite this, the document provides a comprehensive background and a structured overview that will help you understand the situation.