{"id":3965,"date":"2025-07-22T22:22:02","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T20:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.prf.cuni.cz\/migration\/?p=3965"},"modified":"2025-07-22T22:58:35","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T20:58:35","slug":"docasna-ochrana-v4-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.prf.cuni.cz\/migration\/en\/docasna-ochrana-v4-en\/","title":{"rendered":"Temporary protection in v4 countries"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/span><\/div>
How did the Visegr\u00e1d Group countries respond to the unprecedented mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine? In what ways were their approaches similar, and how did they differ? And what lessons can they learn from one another? These questions were addressed in a joint project carried out by researchers from four Central European countries who have been engaged in this topic over the long term. The project was co-funded by the International Visegrad Fund.<\/strong><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As part of the multi-year project Shelter Law-Making: Legal Response to Massive Migration Caused by Russian Aggression Against Ukraine<\/strong><\/em>, academics from the Visegr\u00e1d Group countries examined the similarities and differences in the approaches of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland to the implementation of the Temporary Protection regime in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the broader legal framework associated with it. These countries\u2014three of which share a direct border with Ukraine\u2014collectively experienced the largest mass influx of displaced persons in their histories. Throughout the now more than three-year period of activated Temporary Protection, they have consistently ranked at the forefront of Europe in terms of the number of beneficiaries\u2014both in absolute terms and, especially, relative to population size.

Although all of these countries\u2014like the rest of the European Union\u2014responded to the mass influx by activating the harmonized European instrument of Temporary Protection, their specific legal responses often differed significantly. It was precisely these divergences\u2014alongside numerous similarities\u2014that became the focus of a research project conducted between 2023 and 2025 by a team of researchers from four leading Central European academic institutions. These were:

Dr Hab. Iur. Aleksandra M\u0119\u017cykowska <\/strong>(Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences) \u2013 project coordinator
Prof. Dr Hab. Iur. Anna M\u0142ynarska-Sobaczewska <\/strong>(Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences)
Piotr Polak, MA<\/strong> (Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences)
JUDr. V\u011bra Honuskov\u00e1, Ph.D<\/strong> (Pr\u00e1vnick\u00e1 fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Czechia)
R\u00e9ka Friedery, PhD, LLM<\/strong> (Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies, Hungary)
JUDr. Miroslava Mittelmannov\u00e1<\/strong> (Faculty of Law of Trnava University, Slovakia)
Luk\u00e1\u0161 Nov\u00e1k<\/strong> (The Human Rights League, Slovakia)
<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n