Migration policy and human rights

1. The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures for a common European asylum system comprising:
(a) a uniform status of asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union;
(b) a uniform status of subsidiary protection for nationals of third countries who, without obtaining European asylum, are in need of international protection;
(c) a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons in the event of a massive inflow;
(d) common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of uniform asylum or subsidiary protection status;
(e) criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum or subsidiary protection;
(f) standards concerning the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum or subsidiary protection;
(g) partnership and cooperation with third countries for the purpose of managing inflows of people applying for asylum or subsidiary or temporary protection.

Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

Article 79 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
Text as of April 2026

Drawing from research and human rights practice, the following migration policy issues can be identified in the context of human rights in Ukraine:

  1. Fragmented legislation. The legal regulation of foreigners’ stay in Ukraine is fragmented and primarily emphasizes migration control rather than safeguarding rights or promoting integration. In contrast to the EU, where the legal status of foreigners is defined by a comprehensive set of directives, Ukraine still lacks a unified codified approach to its migration laws.
  2. The lack of a comprehensive integration policy. Ukraine has no state integration program for foreign citizens. 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 lack of a robust integration infrastructure impedes the social and economic inclusion of foreigners, refugees, and individuals in need of international protection. This differs from the EU approach, where people must meet integration requirements to obtain long-term residency. To obtain Ukrainian citizenship, additional requirements were introduced regarding knowledge of Ukrainian history and the Constitution of Ukraine, but no training or learning mechanism was put in place. These tests are much more expensive than those for Ukrainian citizens and seem designed to generate revenue at the expense of foreigners. They are unable to get a driver’s license because the exams are offered only in Ukrainian, and translators are not allowed.
  3. Legal uncertainty of the concept of shelter. The Ukrainian legal system has a core ambiguity: clause 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 distinct categories with separate decision-making processes, leading to legal uncertainty and confusion in enforcement. The term “shelter” is still not defined legally, as there is no implementing legislation, criteria, or procedural norms in place. Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 creates a single international protection process, preventing the existence of multiple parallel procedures for obtaining this status.
  4. The mechanism of temporary protection exists only on paper. Although the institute of temporary protection was established in legislation in 2011, it has never been utilized: no decisions have been issued, and no individual has been granted this status. Nor does the law address the legal status of individuals once this protection ends.
  5. The concentration of powers in the State Migration Service. Following the adoption of Law No. 2952-IX, the SMS now identifies violations, makes expulsion decisions, and enforces them concurrently. Administrative complaints regarding expulsion decisions are submitted to the same authority that adopted the original decision. This creates an obvious conflict of interest and violates the principle of institutional impartiality. Consolidating control, authorization, and punitive functions within a single executive authority does not comply with EU norms, which require that decisions on return and expulsion be reviewed by an appropriate body. Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 requires that the determining authority be functionally independent. The SMS is also responsible for developing a Strategy of State Migration Policy until 2035 and an Action Plan on its implementation. The previous strategy expired in 2025. Accordingly, the SMS simultaneously shapes and implements the policy. The State Migration Service remains responsible for combating illegal migration. Relevant ministries should develop this Strategy, which must include legislative amendments, reform of the migration service, and measures to integrate foreigners.
  6. Poor practices of the State Migration Service. Although the law generally meets protection standards, in practice, individuals often cannot secure appointments with the migration service, receive interpreter assistance, or access medical care. Their documents are often rejected due to minor remarks or nonexistent requirements. There are no legal mechanisms against such actions. The SMS management system does not establish procedures to prevent similar abuse. Conversely, this enables manual process management, which raises the risk of corruption.
  7. No system to identify vulnerable persons. There is currently no system in place to identify vulnerable individuals, victims of violence, or traumatized persons during either the shelter application process or placement. Directive 2024/1346 on reception conditions and Regulation 2024/1356 on screening require that persons with special reception needs, such as victims of torture, victims of trafficking in human beings, SRSV victims, minors, and pregnant women, must be identified within 30 days of submitting their application. The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has created detailed guidelines for monitoring fundamental rights during border screening, including procedures for identifying vulnerable individuals.
  8. Limited access of vulnerable categories to social rights. Although refugees and asylum seekers are formally guaranteed rights, they often encounter significant barriers to employment, education, healthcare, housing, obtaining a driver’s license, and accessing banking or notary services.
  9. 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.
  10. Quota principle of permanent residence. Permanent residence in Ukraine is subject to a government quota, which undermines predictability and legal certainty for foreigners who have legally resided in Ukraine for an extended period. In the EU, individuals automatically receive long-term resident status after legally residing there for five years.
  11. Unjustified delays in processing citizenship applications. At present, there is no legally mandated deadline for processing Ukrainian citizenship applications. In practice, applicants often wait several years for a decision. This issue disproportionately impacts long-term residents, veterans, and individuals with valid integration needs, contradicting the EU principle of good governance.
  12. Abolition of judicial oversight over forced expulsion. Law No. 2952-IX, dated February 24, 2023, conferred upon the State Migration Service (SMS), the State Border Guard Service (SBGS), and the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) the authority to decide on forced expulsion without prior judicial review. This directly contradicts Article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which establishes that justice is administered exclusively by the courts. This practice contradicts Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which mandates the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision, Article 15(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, requiring prompt judicial review of detention; case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (Case C-61/11 PPU El Dridi), which states that detention must be subject to judicial review, and the ECtHR’s case-law in O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine (2022), where the Court ruled that removing asylum seekers from Kyiv airport without conducting a risk assessment breaches Article 3 of the ECHR.
  13. Government support comes too late. Individuals seeking protection do not receive support such as housing, food, or medical care until their application is officially registered. In the EU, such rights arise earlier. Financial support is only given to individuals in temporary accommodation facilities.
  14. Technical barriers to healthcare and the labor market. Protection seekers cannot conclude a medical declaration because they lack the required certificate from the list of acceptable documents. Additionally, obtaining a tax identification number to access the labor market remains overly complicated.
  15. 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.
  16. Alternatives to detention do not work. Bail or surety is rarely applied, resulting in detention even when it is disproportionate or unnecessary. Detention is applied as a routine rather than a last resort. Ukrainian law allows for bail and surety as alternatives to immigration detention (Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings). The Directive on return and EU practice acknowledges a broader range of less coercive measures, such as regular registration requirements, residence restrictions, surrendering travel documents, surveillance, and the use of electronic control tools. The lack of these alternatives results in detention being used as the default rather than a measure of last resort, which violates the principle of proportionality.
  17. The risk of expulsion without proper consideration and the absence of a mechanism to monitor fundamental rights at the border. Some documented cases show that border guards did not inform individuals of their right to seek protection. The decision to refuse entry becomes effective immediately and remains in force during an appeal, as the European Court of Human Rights has held in cases involving Ukraine. Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 on screening mandates that Member States set up an independent mechanism to oversee fundamental rights during screening and border processes. FRA has developed specific recommendations for such mechanisms (2024). Ukraine does not have any similar mechanism.
  18. Restrictions on Russian citizens’ access to administrative services. Under martial law, following Part Two of Law No. 3897-IX (2024) and the Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 1232, dated November 1, 2022, which imposed restrictions on Russian citizens in 2024, Russian citizens encounter substantial obstacles when trying to access government agencies for legalization, securing residence permits, or submitting applications for protection. Although security concerns are valid, imposing blanket restrictions based solely on nationality conflicts with the principle of non-discrimination. Individual risk assessment should replace broad prohibitions. Restrictions based solely on nationality, without considering individual risk assessments, constitute discrimination and violate Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which prohibits discrimination based on nationality), as well as Articles 14 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Protocol 12.
  19. Absence of travel documents for foreign nationals. Ukraine does not issue travel documents 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 may 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.
  20. Lack of special measures for stateless persons. Ukraine does not have a procedure for determining statelessness. In addition, there is a significant risk of “documentary statelessness,” meaning citizens of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus may be unable to renew their documents.

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

  • Harmonize legislation and introduce a single permit. Promote closer alignment of Ukrainian legislation with the EU acquis on legal migration, especially by implementing a unified residence and work permit modeled on the EU approach. 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. It is also essential to implement Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 (Qualification Regulation), Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (Regulation on Asylum Procedures), Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 (on asylum and migration management), Regulation (EU) 2024/1356, Regulation (EU) 2024/1358, Regulation (EU) 2024/1359, and Directive (EU) 2024/1346 (on reception conditions).
  • Adopt special legislation on asylum. Legislation should clearly define the procedures, criteria, and conditions for granting asylum, and ensure that the terminology aligns with international standards and EU law. Resolving the legislative conflict over parallel protection procedures requires amendments to the Constitution, reinterpretation, or legislative action.
  • Distinguish between control, authorization, and executive functions. The body responsible for detecting migration violations should not also impose or enforce penalties, nor should it perform permitting duties. An independent body, distinct from the State Migration Service, should be established to hear appeals from expulsion decisions. The relevant ministries should devise the state migration policy, not the State Migration Service.
  • Develop and implement a comprehensive state integration program. Develop and implement a state policy for the integration of foreigners, including free language courses, training in Ukrainian history and legislation, and mechanisms for social adaptation and orientation. This should align with European best practices and incorporate a certification system.
  • Launch a temporary protection mechanism. Begin to apply the temporary protection mechanism in practice. Specify the grounds for individual deprivation of protection. Add provisions on the legal status to the legislation once the temporary protection period concludes. 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.
  • Abolish the quota principle of permanent residence. Align the process for granting permanent residence with Directive 2003/109/EC, which envisages automatic granting of the long-term resident status after five years of continuous legal residence, provided applicants meet the criteria for stable resources, health insurance, and integration measures.
  • Provide support from the moment of application. Protection seekers should receive housing, food, medical care, and legal aid after submitting an application, based on an assessment of their basic needs, regardless of where they are and until they are officially registered.
  • Introduce a mandatory special needs assessment. The identification of individuals requiring special procedural guarantees must be done within 30 days of receiving the application, with an option to refer them to doctors and psychologists.
  • Practically ensure the rights of vulnerable categories. Pay close attention to ensuring that refugees and protection seekers have access to work, education, and healthcare. This should be addressed not only through legislation but also via targeted administrative mechanisms that remove practical barriers.
  • Improve the personal interview. Ensure high-quality translation for rare languages, secure the applicant’s right to an interviewer and translator of their preferred gender, and introduce mandatory audio recording of each interview.
  • Ensure access to protection procedures from the moment of crossing the border. Border guards should be required to inform individuals of their right to seek protection. Abolish or amend regulations that prohibit admission to the procedure without an individual assessment. The refusal of entry should not be immediate; there should be an option to challenge it in court with a stay of execution.
  • Implement independent monitoring at the border. Establish an independent mechanism to monitor compliance with fundamental rights throughout border procedures, including screening, detention, and entry refusal decisions. This mechanism should involve the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, human rights organizations, and UNHCR.
  • Implement a mandatory individual review process for deportation cases and enhance protections against deportation to dangerous countries. The decision should consider personal circumstances such as health, family ties, the presence of children, risks in the country of return, and the best interests of the child. Implement further legislative measures to prevent expulsion or extradition to countries where individuals face risks, such as Russia, Belarus, and other nations with severe human rights violations.
  • Make sure that decisions are well-founded and that appeal deadlines are reasonable. The decision to refuse must contain separately stated factual circumstances and legal qualifications. The appeal period begins when the decision is received, not when it is made.
  • 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. The body responsible for detecting a violation cannot both decide and execute it at the same time.
  • Expand alternatives to detention. Amend Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings to introduce mandatory registration, residence restrictions, electronic monitoring, surveillance, and other restrictions as alternatives to detention. Ensure that detention is used only as a last resort, consistent with EU practice and the principle of proportionality.
  • Introduce additional procedures concerning stateless persons. Adopt legislation on the statelessness determination procedure in line with UNHCR recommendations and the 1954 Convention. Stateless persons who are not eligible for international protection should be granted access to legal status, documentation, and basic rights.
  • Abolish general restrictions on Russian citizens based solely on citizenship, as outlined in Part Two of the Final Provisions of Law No. 3897-IX and Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1232 of November 1, 2022. Replace categorical bans on Russian citizens accessing administrative services with individual security assessments to balance national security and fundamental rights. Restrictions based solely on citizenship constitute discrimination and violate Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which prohibits discrimination based on nationality), as well as Articles 14 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Protocol 12.
  • Lift the general ban that restricts citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus (except for servicemembers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) from opening bank accounts, accessing notary services, buying or selling real estate, amending ownership records, and obtaining administrative or other financial services. Restrictions may be imposed on an individual basis following a risk assessment, in line with clear legal criteria and the principles of proportionality and necessity. Currently, this ban prevents these foreigners from residing in Ukraine, even if they are family members of Armed Forces personnel or volunteers. Restrictions based only on citizenship, without individual risk assessment, are discriminatory.
  • 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 documents for refugees and individuals under additional protection, recognized by EU Member States, to support their freedom of movement and uphold their dignity.
  • Urgently consider and adopt draft law No. 11460 regarding foreign veterans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and their family members. This draft has been awaiting its first reading in parliament for six months. This law streamlines the processes for legalizing and granting citizenship to foreign citizens who served in the Ukrainian Defense Forces and their families. Its adoption is a moral responsibility and a practical step toward integration.
  • Establish legislative deadlines for processing citizenship applications. Establish a legally binding time frame for processing citizenship applications to promote predictability and uphold good governance. Clarify the procedures for obtaining citizenship and specify the grounds for denial.
  • 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);
  • Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine;
  • Group of cases Belozorov, Razvozzhayev v. Ukraine (forced transfer to the Russian Federation despite existing risks to the person).

Additionally, see the following sections:

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: Legal migration, Asylum policy, Right to asylum, Forced expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons sections and related links. 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. @ 2025 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Author picture

Right to Protection Charitable Foundation