Dutch court rules against minister's delay in asylum decisions
A landmark ruling by the Council of State forces the Dutch government to speed up asylum decisions, impacting thousands of applicants. The minister’s nine-month extension for processing applications has been deemed unlawful, meaning faster outcomes for those awaiting a verdict.
| Key Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Origin | Asylum application by a Turkish man (April 2022) |
| Standard Decision Period | 6 months |
| Minister’s Extension | 9 months (total 15 months) |
| Court Ruling | Extension unlawful; must adhere to 6-month period |
| Legal Basis | European Procedures Directive |
| Condition for Extension | Sudden, significant spike in asylum applications (not gradual increase) |
| Impacted Group | All asylum applicants covered by the extension |
| Ruling Date | 25 March 2026 |
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State is the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, overseeing the legality of government decisions. In this case, it ensures compliance with European asylum laws, protecting applicants' rights to timely decisions.
Openrijk is free and ad-free
Do you value our work? Help us stay online with a small contribution.
external link to whydonate.comRead the full translated article below
Minister was not permitted to extend the decision period for asylum applications by nine months
The Minister for Asylum and Migration was not permitted to extend the standard six-month period for deciding on an asylum application by nine months. This is stated in today’s ruling (25 March 2026) by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. This ruling concludes a legal procedure in which, in November 2023, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division referred so-called preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg regarding the interpretation of the Procedures Directive.
Background
A Turkish man submitted an asylum application in the Netherlands in April 2022. Normally, the Minister must decide within six months. In this case, however, the Minister did not do so because he extended the decision period by nine months. He did so because, in his view, there was a large number of asylum applications that he could no longer process carefully within six months. The Turkish man disagreed with the extension of the decision period, arguing that the conditions of the European Procedures Directive had not been met. In November 2023, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division asked the Court of Justice for clarification of the Procedures Directive. The Procedures Directive states that the six-month period may be extended by nine months if a ‘large number’ of people submit asylum applications ‘simultaneously’, making it practically very difficult to decide within six months.
Answers from the Court of Justice
The Court of Justice answered the preliminary questions in May 2025. In its ruling, the European Court ruled that an extension of the decision period is only permissible if the number of asylum applications ‘increases significantly within a short period’ compared to the usual and foreseeable pattern in a Member State, making it practically difficult to complete the procedure within six months. An extension is not possible if there is a gradual increase in the number of asylum applications over a long period. Staff shortages or existing backlogs in processing files do not justify extending the period.
Final ruling of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division
In its final ruling today, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division has ruled that the Minister was not permitted to extend the decision period by nine months because he failed to demonstrate that the conditions of the Procedures Directive had been met. This means that the nine-month extension does not apply to all asylum cases falling under it. The Minister therefore had six months, not fifteen, to decide on the Turkish man’s asylum application and on the other asylum applications covered by the extension.
Read the full text of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division’s ruling here.