<aside>
Last updated: 16-Sept-2026. Lisboa, Portugal
</aside>
<aside>
<aside>
Follow for updates:
https://www.instagram.com/legal.pt?utm_source=qr
</aside>
</aside>
<aside>
Review status — Under Review
This assessment has undergone substantive legal review and correction. The present version incorporates the identified corrections concerning the legal characterization of subsequent termination measures, the evidentiary status of AIMA letter samples, and the distinction between the original grant of temporary protection and its later reassessment. Individual cases require examination of the complete administrative record and the operative decision.
</aside>
<aside>
Correction note — 16 September 2026
Following the website review, this assessment was revised to distinguish retrospective invalidity/anulação administrativa from prospective revogação or cessação, to clarify that template or sample letters do not by themselves establish inadequate reasoning, and to state explicitly that the legal characterization of an individual AIMA measure depends on the complete administrative record, including incorporated reports and the operative decision.
</aside>
<aside>
This page provides an independent legal analysis prepared by the Belarusian Initiative for Democracy and the Rule of Law. Its purpose is to clarify the legal framework governing temporary protection under EU and Portuguese law, to identify inconsistencies arising from the withdrawal of temporary protection from third-country nationals who were legally residing in Ukraine before 24 February 2022, and to assist affected individuals, legal professionals, journalists, researchers, and public institutions in understanding the relevant legislation, administrative practices, and human rights implications. This document serves as a factual reference tool intended to promote transparency, legal accuracy, and informed public discussion, without advancing any political agenda.
</aside>
<aside>
Portugal adopted a national temporary-protection framework in March 2022 that expressly included certain third-country nationals, including persons holding temporary residence permits and certain long-stay visas. Portuguese authorities subsequently used this framework to grant temporary-protection status to a substantial number of third-country nationals, in addition to Ukrainian nationals.
The Portuguese system was designed as a mass administrative mechanism. Official Portuguese materials described the attribution of temporary residence documentation under the temporary-protection framework as automatic for persons falling within the applicable criteria, while the current AIMA guidance states that the relevant eligibility requirements must be supported by documentary evidence. The distinction between the administrative mechanism used in 2022 and the evidentiary requirements currently described by AIMA is material to the assessment of subsequent reassessment decisions.
The legal issue examined in this Assessment is therefore not limited to the original eligibility of a person for temporary protection under Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382. It also concerns the legal consequences of Portugal having already granted temporary protection under its national framework, and the legal basis and procedure subsequently used to reassess or terminate that previously granted status.
The central question is whether a later administrative reassessment may lawfully result in the termination of a status that was previously granted under the Portuguese framework, on the basis of criteria subsequently applied by the Administration, and what procedural and judicial safeguards must apply to such a measure.
</aside>
<aside>
The Portuguese administrative practice subsequently moved from the initial granting of temporary protection to the reassessment of previously granted statuses.
On 18 November 2025, AIMA officially announced a specific channel for the “reavaliação da decisão de Proteção Temporária de não ucranianos”, concerning temporary-protection decisions arising from the war in Ukraine. AIMA requested the proof of the temporary-protection application, a copy of the passport and additional documentation necessary for reassessment. The existence of a dedicated reassessment mechanism confirms that the Administration was reviewing previously issued temporary-protection decisions concerning third-country nationals rather than dealing exclusively with new applications.
This subsequent reassessment must be distinguished from the original allocation of temporary protection. The relevant legal question is therefore not only whether the person satisfied the applicable eligibility criteria at the time of the original application, but also what legal mechanism permitted the Administration to revisit a decision that had already granted temporary-protection status.
The present Assessment therefore treats the Portuguese practice as a two-stage administrative process:
The legal validity of the second stage cannot be determined solely by reference to the criteria applicable to the first stage. It requires separate examination of the legal basis, temporal effect, administrative procedure and consequences of the later decision.
</aside>
<aside>
This Assessment uses “termination of temporary protection” as a neutral descriptive term. The legal characterization of an individual AIMA measure — including revogação, anulação administrativa, cessação or another form of administrative termination — must be determined by reference to the legal basis, reasoning and operative part of the individual decision.
</aside>
<aside>
The replacement, in Portuguese legislation, of the broader reference to persons “residing legally in Ukraine” with the requirement of “residente permanente” raises a question concerning the temporal and legal effect of the later Portuguese framework. That question must be distinguished from the separate question of whether Portugal was permitted, under Article 2(3) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, to extend temporary protection to additional categories of persons.
Where temporary protection had already been granted under the Portuguese national framework, the subsequent application of narrower criteria raises a further question: whether those criteria could lawfully operate as a basis for terminating an already granted status, and if so, through which administrative mechanism and with what temporal effect.
The legal assessment must therefore distinguish between the power to define or amend eligibility for future grants and the power to reassess or terminate a status that has already been granted.
The legal issue is therefore not simply whether Portuguese law was permitted to use a permanent-residence criterion, but whether the withdrawal of protection from persons who had previously been admitted under the Portuguese framework was lawfully effected and whether the applicable national measures remained consistent with the EU framework governing temporary protection.
The reviewed AIMA notifications appear to have relied on the absence of permanent residence in Ukraine as the principal stated ground for the withdrawal or cessation of temporary protection.
Excerpt from the Information Proposta forming part of the final AIMA decision
The following passage appears in the administrative reasoning attached to the final AIMA decision:
“Ao conceder este estatuto, Portugal conferiu e confere às pessoas deslocadas e seus familiares o direito a permanecer, legalmente, no seu território, situação que a ser incumprida, i.e., não existindo permanência, ou até mesmo encontrando-se cessados os pressupostos iniciais de atribuição do estatuto, viola a boa-fé e transparência que presidiu ao desiderato da atuação política.”
English translation:
“By granting this status, Portugal granted and continues to grant displaced persons and their family members the right to remain legally in its territory, a situation which, if breached, i.e. where there is no longer such residence, or even where the initial conditions for granting the status have ceased to exist, violates the good faith and transparency that underpinned the purpose of the political action.”
The passage is reproduced as evidence of the reasoning expressed by AIMA in the administrative decision. It does not, by itself, establish the legal validity of that reasoning or determine whether the same reasoning was applied in all individual cases.
The application of RCM 135/2022 to persons who had previously obtained temporary protection under the earlier Portuguese framework raises a distinct question of temporal application and legal certainty. The assessment should distinguish between (i) a genuinely retroactive alteration of the legal conditions under which protection was granted, and (ii) a prospective withdrawal or cessation of a status on the basis of a subsequent change in the applicable legal framework.
Whether an individual AIMA decision is legally invalid depends on the specific grounds of illegality and the applicable procedural and substantive rules. Under the Portuguese Administrative Procedure Code, the relevant framework for invalidity is principally set out in Articles 161 and 163, while Article 165 concerns revogação and anulação administrativas.
The reviewed decision contains stated reasons, including the absence of proof of permanent residence in Ukraine and the absence of proof that the applicant was unable to return safely and durably to the country of origin. The legal sufficiency of those reasons, including whether they correctly applied the relevant temporal and substantive framework to an already granted status, requires separate assessment.
In the reviewed decision, AIMA treated the absence of proof of permanent residence in Ukraine, together with the absence of proof of inability to return safely and durably to the country of origin, as grounds for terminating the previously granted temporary-protection status.
AIMA treated permanent residence as a continuing eligibility requirement for a person whose temporary-protection status had already been granted. This characterization is legally significant because it transforms the absence of a criterion used in the later framework into a basis for terminating an already granted status. Whether such a continuing requirement could lawfully be applied in this manner requires separate assessment under the rules governing the temporal application and administrative termination of previously granted protection.
The documents indicate that AIMA initiated a prior-hearing procedure under Articles 121–122 CPA. The proposal states that, after the applicable period had elapsed, the Administration was not aware of arguments submitted by the interested party capable of altering the proposed decision.
</aside>
<aside>
An excerpt from the official letter dated Oct 16th, 2025
An excerpt from the official letter dated Oct 23rd, 2025
****The samples are presented as evidence of the wording and stated reasoning used in the reviewed notifications. They are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish that all individual cases were assessed or decided in identical terms, nor do they by themselves establish that the reasoning in an individual decision was legally inadequate. Any assessment of the sufficiency of reasoning must examine the complete administrative record, including any report, information or proposal incorporated into the decision, together with the individual decision and the procedure applicable to the person concerned.
</aside>
<aside>
The judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-244/24 and C-290/24, Kaduna (EU:C:2024:1038), is directly relevant to the distinction between EU-mandated temporary protection and additional protection granted by a Member State under Article 2(3) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382.
The Court considered the situation of third-country nationals who had received temporary protection under a Member State’s exercise of the option provided by Article 2(3). The judgment addresses, among other matters, the point in time at which a Member State may terminate such optional temporary protection and the consequences for the subsequent return of persons whose stay becomes irregular.
The judgment therefore prevents an absolute proposition that temporary protection granted under a national extension can never subsequently be terminated. At the same time, it does not determine the legality of a Portuguese decision merely by establishing that Article 2(3) protection may be terminated. The legality of a particular Portuguese measure remains dependent on the legal basis on which protection was granted, the nature of the subsequent decision, the applicable national administrative rules, and the temporal effect attributed to the later criteria.
For the present Assessment, Kaduna is therefore relevant principally as a framework for distinguishing:
(a) the scope of EU-mandated protection;
(b) additional protection granted by a Member State under Article 2(3); and
(c) the legal consequences of a subsequent administrative decision terminating protection that has already been granted.
This distinction is material because the present Portuguese cases concern the reassessment of previously granted statuses rather than only the refusal of new applications.
</aside>
The temporary protection regime in the European Union was established by Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for granting 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.
The Directive establishes an EU-level mechanism designed to provide immediate and collective protection to persons compelled to leave their country as a result of armed conflict, where individual asylum procedures cannot be effectively applied because of the scale of the crisis.
The Directive sets out the legal framework and guiding principles but does not specify the categories of persons to whom protection applies.
Article 2(b) of Directive 2001/55/EC refers to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, thereby defining the international framework underpinning the EU’s temporary protection mechanism. This reference links the Directive’s concept of displaced persons to the Refugee Convention and other international or national protection instruments, without making temporary protection equivalent to refugee status.