Right to asylum

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Collective expulsions are prohibited. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Article 78 of the TFEU requires the EU to establish a common policy on asylum, subsidiary and temporary protection. This policy must provide appropriate status for individuals needing international protection and address the following: a uniform asylum status, subsidiary protection status, a temporary protection system for mass influx situations, common procedures for granting and withdrawing statuses, criteria for determining the responsible Member State, standards for the reception of applicants, and cooperation with third countries.

Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
Text as of April 2026

Based on research and human rights practice, the following problems in the exercise of this right in Ukraine can be distinguished:

  1. Ukraine’s asylum and temporary protection system needs substantial reform to align with EU standards. The ongoing war does not justify discriminatory practices, systemic departures from judicial review, violations of the principle of non-refoulement, or the neglect of individual assessment.
  2. Legal uncertainty of the concept of shelter The Ukrainian legal system has a core ambiguity: paragraph 26 of Article 106 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to decide on shelter issues, while the State Migration Service (SMS) is responsible for determining refugee status and additional protection under the 2011 Law on Refugees. Therefore, the terms “shelter” and “international protection” (including refugee status and additional protection) are legally separate categories with different decision-making processes, leading to legal uncertainty and confusion in legal enforcement. The term “shelter” is still not defined legally, as there is no implementing legislation, criteria, or procedural norms in place. The Social Services Classifier (Order No. 429/2020) includes “asylum seekers” as recipients of social services, but omits “protection seekers” (refugees and others). This creates legal uncertainty, an unclear dual system of protection, and potential inconsistencies with EU Regulation 2024/1348, which establishes a single procedure for international protection.
  3. Law and practice diverge. Even if the law generally meets protection standards, poor management often prevents individuals from accessing basic guarantees. Many are unable to secure appointments with the migration service, are denied documents or receive them without a decision, lack interpreter services, cannot access medical care, and are unable to open bank accounts. This issue largely results from procedures that lack clear definition or consensus.
  4. Gaps in the regulation of temporary protection. The temporary protection mechanism is currently ineffective. Although the institute of temporary protection was established in legislation in 2011, it has never been utilized: no decisions on temporary protection provision have been issued, and no individual has been granted this status. The profile law lacks specific provisions on the legal status of individuals after temporary protection ends and does not address mechanisms for voluntary or forced return. It also does not distinguish between security criteria and the principle of proportionality when individuals are deprived of such protection.
  5. Absence of travel documents for foreign nationals. Ukraine does not provide a travel document to foreign citizens who have lost their passports or whose passports have expired and cannot be renewed. This essentially leaves individuals in a condition of documented statelessness, preventing them from legalizing their status or exercising their right to freedom of movement. If foreigners (citizens of Russia, Belarus, and other countries) cannot extend or renew their documents, they lose their legal status, and the migration service decides to deport them. EU Member States typically issue these documents in compliance with their national laws and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
  6. Lack of a comprehensive integration policy for asylum seekers. Ukraine has no state integration program for foreign citizens seeking asylum. There are no standardized language courses, civic guidance programs or social adaptation mechanisms. This is in stark contrast to EU practice, where integration serves as the structural foundation of migration policy. The absence of a proper integration infrastructure hinders the social and economic inclusion of foreigners legally residing in Ukraine, refugees, and individuals in need of international protection.
  7. Risks of draft law No. 14211 on a single permit. Draft law No. 14211, submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in November 2025, proposes a single residence and work permit for foreigners in line with EU Directive 2011/98/EU. Although this is a positive step toward harmonization, the current text does not grant protection seekers access to employment. This may increase the socio-economic marginalization of vulnerable groups and contradicts EU Directive 2024/1346 on reception conditions, which requires timely labor market access for asylum seekers.
  8. Worsening access to protection at the border. Law No. 2952-IX, dated February 24, 2023, substantially narrowed the right to seek international protection at Ukraine’s borders by broadening the reasons for rejecting asylum requests and restricting the opportunities for appealing such applications. Border guards are not always obligated to inform individuals of their right to seek protection. Additionally, refusals of entry become effective immediately and cannot be appealed temporarily, which poses a systemic risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement. In the case of Kebe and Others v. Ukraine (2017), the ECtHR determined that Ukraine’s border procedures did not provide sufficient protections against arbitrary expulsion, especially when there was a genuine risk of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. Furthermore, in 2025, Ukraine extradited two people to Russia who intended to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine: one of them died after detention in Russia, while the other faced serious criminal charges. These shortcomings are incompatible with Article 28 of EU Regulation 2024/1348.
  9. Inadequate reception conditions for asylum seekers. Protection seekers in Ukraine are not granted specific services until they formally submit an application to the relevant authorities. This contradicts EU Directive 2024/1346, which mandates that certain rights are granted once the need for protection is expressed. Financial support is primarily restricted to accommodation at temporary shelter points for foreigners, which are capacity-limited and currently overcrowded. Individuals denied placement do not get state assistance. Access to medical care is restricted because a protection seeker’s certificate is not included in the approved document list for signing a declaration with a doctor. Delays in issuing ID card copies needed for a taxpayer identification number impede legal employment, healthcare access, and administrative and financial services.
  10. Lack of a vulnerability identification mechanism. Ukraine lacks a systematic way to identify and support vulnerable protection seekers, such as unaccompanied minors, victims of torture, people with disabilities, and those with serious health problems, at any stage of the process. EU Regulation 2024/1348 and Directive 2024/1346 mandate such assessments and adequate support, as lacking these can seriously endanger the most vulnerable.
  11. Limitation periods for filing asylum applications and appeals. The existing statutory deadlines for submitting asylum applications and appealing SMS decisions are too limited and fail to consider factors such as language barriers, lack of legal aid, trauma, or remote locations. EU Regulation 2024/1348 requires that applicants be given sufficient time to prepare their applications and that appeal deadlines be set to ensure effective access to a court.
  12. Limited alternatives to immigration detention. Ukrainian law allows for bail and surety as alternatives to immigration detention (Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings). The EU Directive on return and Directive 2024/1346 stipulate that detention should be used only as a last resort, after considering options such as regular registration, residence restrictions, document surrender, supervision, and electronic monitoring. The limited options available in Ukraine result in an excessive and unnecessary use of detention.
  13. Lack of biometric documents for recognized refugees. Ukraine does not issue biometric travel or identity documents to recognized refugees and individuals with subsidiary protection that meet EU standards and are accepted by all EU Member States. This limits the freedom of movement and practical integration of protected persons. It also does not meet the requirement in Article 28 of the 1951 Refugee Convention to provide refugees with travel documents.
  14. Family reunification. Directive 2003/86/EC and Qualification Regulation 2024/1347 set clear standards on the right to family reunification. The family reunification process for refugees in Ukraine is effectively non-functional.

What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:

  • Adopt new specialized legislation on asylum to clearly outline the procedures, criteria, and conditions for granting asylum in Ukraine, ensuring the terminology aligns with international standards and EU acquis. Resolve the legal uncertainty concerning the term “asylum” and start implementing the international protection mechanism.
  • Harmonize the applicant’s rights and obligations with EU standards. EU law does not oblige the applicant to notify the central authority of travel within the state’s territory. Additionally, some rights need to be granted prior to submitting the application. The legislation should explicitly specify that “submission of an application” includes any expression of intent to request international protection, even if it is not formally registered. The five-day deadline for submitting an application should be eliminated, as it unfairly limits access to the process in unexpected situations.
  • Add provisions regarding the legal status once the temporary protection period concludes to the legislation. Drawing on EU Directive 2001/55/EC and the 2022–2027 temporary protection regime for Ukrainians, adopt clear rules on legal status, voluntary return, and dignified reintegration following the end of temporary protection. Ensure effective adaptation and orientation measures. Specify the grounds and procedures for individual deprivation of temporary protection, considering the criteria of a threat to national or community security and adhering to the principle of proportionality as required by the EU.
  • Restore judicial oversight over forced expulsion. The Verkhovna Rada should revoke the parts of Law No. 2952-IX that eliminated the requirement for mandatory judicial review prior to expulsion decisions. Every decision on forced expulsion must be subject to independent judicial review in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC on return and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR.
  • Ensure effective judicial protection. The time limit for appealing the decision should start when the applicant receives the full text, not from the date of its adoption. Mechanisms should be implemented to speed up judicial review in defense cases, as lengthy proceedings that take several years violate the principle of reasonable time.
  • Ensure the quality and procedural guarantees of the personal interview. Legislation should establish the applicant’s right to a qualified interpreter for rare languages, allowing for emergency involvement of specialists. It should also grant the right to select the gender of both the interviewer and interpreter, particularly in cases involving sexual violence, harassment, and human trafficking. Personnel involved in interviews should complete mandatory specialized training that considers the circumstances of their countries of origin, as well as the effects of trauma, torture, and vulnerability factors. Each interview must be recorded, and the audio recording takes precedence over the written protocol in the event of discrepancies.
  • Ensuring effective access to legal aid and translation services. Free legal aid should be available from the moment of application registration and throughout all stages of the process. Additionally, the time limit for evaluating eligibility should be reduced, as the current ten-day period hinders prompt access to protection. Exclusion grounds for legal aid should rely on clear, objective criteria that ensure applicants still receive genuine protection. At the same time, legal training programs in protection procedures and international refugee law should be expanded. Every decision should be translated into a language the person understands, as stipulated by Article 12 of the Directive on return and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
  • Expand alternatives to detention. Amend Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings to include alternatives to immigration detention, such as mandatory registration, place of residence restrictions, electronic monitoring, surveillance, and similar measures. Detention should be employed only as a last resort, in line with EU standards and the principles of proportionality and necessity. For vulnerable individuals, alternative measures should be implemented, and detention at the territorial migration service facilities should be stopped.
  • Implement a system for early detection and meeting special procedural needs. The legislation should require a mandatory assessment of applicants’ special procedural needs soon after they submit an application, with a clearly specified deadline for completion. When signs of past violence or trauma are present, it is essential to involve medical, psychological, and other specialized professionals. Employees working in the SMS and accommodation centers are required to complete mandatory training on recognizing and addressing the specific needs of vulnerable applicants.
  • Ensure appropriate safeguards are in place during medical examinations and age determination. The legislation should explicitly state the purpose of the medical examination and outline the algorithm for using its results when considering the application. It should specify that the examination is conducted solely with the applicant’s consent and only if there are indications of persecution or serious harm. Age determination should start with a psychological assessment. Physiological examinations should be used only as a last resort, and invasive methods, such as assessing puberty or dental maturity, should be explicitly restricted by law. If doubts about a person’s age persist after using all assessment methods, legislation should presume the individual is a minor in favor of the applicant.
  • Improve the application review procedure. Clear requirements must be established for the sources of information about the country of origin used in preparing migration service conclusions. The criteria for priority review of applications should be broadened to align with EU standards, and the consideration deadlines should be standardized with a comprehensive list of grounds for extensions.
  • Enhance non-refoulement guarantees by requiring mandatory individual assessments of personal circumstances for all return and removal decisions. Implement bans on deportations to countries where individuals face risk, especially Russia and Belarus, when risk statements are submitted, and proper risk assessments are conducted according to established procedures.
  • Introduce the concept of a safe country. Incorporating the concepts of a safe country of origin and a safe third country into Ukrainian legislation will align the protection system with European standards and make the procedures more predictable.
  • Ensure the quality and completeness of decisions on applications. The decision to refuse an asylum seeker should include a separate statement of the factual circumstances and legal grounds, ensuring the possibility for appeal. The legislation should also address the gap in the withdrawal process by clearly defining both explicit and implicit application withdrawal procedures.
  • Introduce special procedures at the border. A separate border procedure should be developed for considering applications for international protection, with a clearly defined maximum duration. Border guards should receive training to recognize individuals requiring protection, such as victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied children. The provisions of Ukraine’s Law No. 2952-IX that disallow protection procedures without individual assessment may be repealed or revised once the right to effectively challenge such decisions is introduced. Decisions refusing entry should include a suspensive-appeal mechanism in accordance with EU Regulation 2024/1348 and ECtHR case law.
  • Introduce a travel document for foreign citizens. Enact legislation permitting the issuance of travel documents to foreign citizens who have lost their passports or whose passports have expired and cannot be renewed, in line with international practice and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Draft law No. 11460 authorizes the issuance of this document only to servicemembers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
  • Introduce biometric identity documents accepted by EU Member States for refugees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries, to support their free movement.
  • Ensure material conditions for reception and access to medical care. Material reception conditions for asylum seekers, such as housing, food, clothing, and sanitary facilities, should be available from the moment they apply, not only after registration. Legislation should require the mandatory identification of individuals with special needs and ensure the provision of suitable conditions for their support. Protection seekers should have guaranteed access to medical care, especially by ensuring the relevant certificate is included in the list of required documents for a medical declaration. Expand the capacity of temporary accommodation facilities and establish support mechanisms for those not accommodated in centers.
  • Develop and implement a comprehensive state integration policy that includes standardized Ukrainian-language courses, civic orientation and integration programs, and social adaptation mechanisms. This should align with European best practices and incorporate a certification system. Ensure integration by providing access to education and employment opportunities. Ensuring protection seekers have timely and unobstructed access to copies of identity documents is essential for obtaining identification codes and entering the labor market.
  • Urgently consider and adopt draft law No. 11460 on foreign veterans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (pending consideration in parliament since October 2025). This law streamlines the processes for legalization and citizenship for foreign citizens who served in the Ukrainian Defense Forces and their families.
  • Adopt regulatory measures that guarantee the right to family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection, in line with Directive 2003/86/EC and Qualification Regulation 2024/1347. This should include a simplified application process and the waiver of housing and income criteria for refugees who apply within three months of receiving their status.
  • Review draft law No. 14211, which aims to preserve labor market access for protection seekers and stateless persons. The draft was registered in February 2026 and is awaiting its first reading in parliament. Although introducing a single permit aligns with EU Directive 2011/98/EU, excluding vulnerable groups contradicts EU Directive 2024/1346 on conditions of reception and should be addressed before adoption.
  • Enforce ECtHR judgments in the following cases:
  • Kebe and Others v. Ukraine groups of cases (systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure: inability to apply for asylum through a representative; inability to apply for asylum due to detention; immediate execution of a decision to refuse entry without the possibility of appeal; failure to assess individual risks of return to the host country; failure to inform in an understandable language about decisions made and the grounds for detention; various problems with the procedure for detaining asylum seekers);
  • Group of cases Belozorov, Razvozzhayev v. Ukraine (forced transfer to the Russian Federation, despite the existing risks for the person).

For a comprehensive overview of these issues and the rationale behind our recommendations, please refer to the research section, specifically the document available in Ukrainian: Right to asylum, Asylum policy. If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.

Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the original source is included. @ 2026 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Author picture

Right to Protection Charitable Foundation