EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-290/24, Abkez: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2024 – AI, ZY, BG v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0290

62024CN0290

April 25, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2024/3902

1.7.2024

(Case C-290/24, Abkez)

(C/2024/3902)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AI, ZY, BG

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

1.Must Article 4 of Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has made use of the possibility offered by Article 7(1) of that directive also to grant temporary protection under that directive to additional categories of displaced persons (‘the optional group’), the temporary protection given to that optional group continues not only in the case of an automatic extension as referred to in Article 4(1) for the period specified in that provision, but also in the case of a decision to extend the period as referred to in Article 4(2) for the period specified in that provision?

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

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

OJ 2001 L 212, p. 12.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3902/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia