Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:160
Date: 2026-03-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary  C-489/24 – 1 
Case C-489/24 [Safita] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
11 July 2024 
Referring court:  
Raad van State (the Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
10 July 2024 
Appellant:  
Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid 
Respondent:  
X 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal by the Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (State Secretary for 
Justice and Security; the competent determining authority under Netherlands 
immigration law) (‘State Secretary’) against a judgment by the rechtbank Den 
Haag, zittingsplaats Arnhem (District Court, The Hague, sitting at Arnhem 
(‘District Court’) declaring inadmissible an appeal by a foreign national against 
the failure of the State Secretary to issue a decision on the foreign national’s 
application for international protection. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on 
common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. The 
referring court wishes to ascertain whether the determining authority may apply 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real names of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE-489/24 
 
2  
that article repeatedly and consecutively. If so, the referring court then also wishes 
to ascertain under what conditions this may happen, whether the total duration of 
such an extension is subject to any restrictions, and what circumstances may be 
considered by the court that is tasked with reviewing such an extension. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. May the determining authority apply point (b) of the third subparagraph of 
Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive repeatedly and consecutively? 
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: 
a. Under what conditions may the determining authority apply point 
(b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive repeatedly and consecutively, and is the 
total duration of the period over which the determining authority 
may apply that provision repeatedly and consecutively subject to 
any restrictions? 
b. In answering the question whether the determining authority was 
permitted to extend the time limit for making its decision 
following, and consecutive to, a previous decree extending that 
time limit, to what extent can or must the court take account of 
the increase in the number of asylum applications, including 
relative to the period preceding the previous decree extending the 
time limit, and the determining authority’s efforts (if any) to 
improve the shortfall in its decision-making capacity in order to 
ensure – against the backdrop of Article 4(1) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive – an adequate and complete examination of 
asylum applications? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 
2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international 
protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60; ‘Asylum Procedures Directive’): 
Article 4(1), Article 31(3), third subparagraph, point (b) 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Articles 7 and 18  
Provisions of national law relied on 
Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (‘Law on foreign nationals 2000’, Vw 2000): 
Article 42(4), introductory part and point (b) 
SAFITA 
 
3 
Wijzigingsbesluit Vreemdelingencirculaire (‘Decree Amending the Foreign 
Nationals Circular’) of 21 September 2022 (‘WBV 2022/22’) 
Wijzigingsbesluit Vreemdelingencirculaire (‘Decree Amending the Foreign 
Nationals Circular’) of 26 January 2023 (‘WBV 2023/3’) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Since the latter half of 2021, there has been an unexpectedly large increase in the 
number of asylum applications in the Netherlands. This, in combination with pre-
existing backlogs in the examination of asylum applications and insufficient 
personnel capacity, has meant that, in practice, the State Secretary is no longer 
able to examine those asylum applications with due care within six months. 
2 In response, the State Secretary issued the WBV 2022/22 to extend the statutory 
six-month time limit for deciding whether to issue a temporary asylum residence 
permit, initially by nine months. The State Secretary based this extension on the 
introductory part and point (b) of Article 42(4) of the Vw 2000, which serves to 
implement point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive in Netherlands law. The State Secretary then issued the 
WBV 2023/3 to extend that time limit by a further nine months, for all asylum 
applications submitted from 1 January 2023 until (at the latest) 1 January 2024.  
3 X, a Syrian national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 17 February 2023. 
The State Secretary failed to decide on that asylum application within six months. 
After giving the State Secretary notice of non-performance on 23 August 2023, X 
appealed to the District Court against the failure to make a decision within the 
prescribed time limit. 
4 The District Court handed down judgment on 12 December 2023 in which it 
found, in accordance with its earlier judgment on the WBV 2022/22, that the 
WBV 2023/3 allowed the State Secretary to exercise the authority conveyed by 
point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures 
Directive to extend the six-month time limit for deciding on asylum applications 
by a further nine months. However, this was permitted only for asylum 
applications submitted on or before 26 June 2023, not for all asylum applications 
submitted in 2023. 
5 The District Court found that point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) 
of the Asylum Procedures Directive is intended to offer Member States flexibility 
in the event of an unexpected increase in the number of asylum applications. 
However, the State Secretary’s ability to extend the time limit in this manner is 
subject to time restrictions. Against the backdrop of Article 4(1) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive, Member States that are confronted with an unexpected 
increase in the number of asylum applications are expected to act swiftly to ensure 
that the duration of the procedure for examining asylum applications is reduced to 
six months.  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE-489/24 
 
4  
6 According to the District Court, however, it can be inferred from the WBV 2023/3 
that the State Secretary was aware that he would not achieve this by the end of 
2023, that is, more than 15 months after the WBV 2022/22 was adopted. The 
District Court held that this was incompatible with Article 4(1) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive, given that the State Secretary had failed to argue that a 
further unexpected increase in asylum requests had occurred in 2023. The duration 
of the extension should therefore be limited to nine months after the 
WBV 2022/22 came into effect. As such, the District Court held that the 
WBV 2023/3 was inapplicable to asylum applications lodged after 26 June 2023. 
7 X lodged his asylum application on 17 February 2023, and the nine-month 
extension of the time limit for deciding on that application was lawful, according 
to the District Court. This means that X was premature in filing the notice of non-
performance on 24 August 2023, and as a result the District Court declared that 
his appeal against the failure to decide within the time limit prescribed was 
inadmissible. The State Secretary lodged an appeal against that judgment before 
the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak (‘Administrative Jurisdiction Division’) of the 
Council of State (‘Division’), which is the referring court. X then brought a cross-
appeal. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 The State Secretary argues that the District Court’s interpretation and application 
of Articles 4 and 31 of the Asylum Procedures Directive is incorrect: the District 
Court erred in ruling that the WBV 2023/3 is incompatible with point (b) of the 
third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, in so far 
as it concerns asylum applications that were lodged after 26 June 2023, that is, 
nine months after the WBV 2022/22 came into effect. 
9 The State Secretary argues that the District Court erred in ruling that – in the light 
of Article 4(1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive – the State Secretary’s ability 
to extend the time limit for deciding under point (b) of the third subparagraph of 
Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive must be restricted in time. He 
believes that he may exercise the authority to extend the time limit by nine months 
following a previous decree to the same effect for as long as the influx of asylum 
applications is so great that an adequate and complete examination of those 
asylum applications necessitates such an extension. For how long this may be 
repeated is impossible to determine in advance, nor is it relevant for that purpose 
whether the increase in the number of asylum applications is one that was 
expected. If the number of asylum applications lodged increases – regardless of 
whether this is expected or unexpected – more personnel will be needed, including 
in view of Article 4(1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, and in those situations 
the Asylum Procedures Directive provides for the possibility of extending by nine 
months the time limit for deciding on those asylum applications. 
SAFITA 
 
5 
10 The State Secretary argues that whether or not he may extend that time limit 
therefore depends on the actual situation and circumstances, including the 
available capacity and existing backlogs in examining asylum applications. 
According to the State Secretary, large numbers of asylum applications were still 
being lodged in 2023, and represent an increase compared with the 2022 numbers, 
making it impossible, despite efforts to increase decision-making capacity, to keep 
pace with the numbers of asylum applications being lodged. As a consequence, 
the number of asylum applications that have yet to be examined continues to rise, 
so that the State Secretary is unable to examine those asylum applications 
adequately and with due care within six months. The actual situation remains such 
that extending the time limit is necessary, therefore. How many times he may 
decide to extend that time limit is irrelevant, according to the State Secretary.  
11 In his cross-appeal, X argues that the District Court erred in ruling that the 
situation matches that referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph of 
Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive. That provision does not cover a 
gradual increase in the number of asylum applications, in his view. According to 
X, the State Secretary’s extensions of the statutory time limit under both the 
WBV 2022/22 and the WBV 2023/3 were unlawful. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Background to the additional questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
12 By way of the WBV 2023/3, the State Secretary extended the time limit for 
deciding on asylum applications for a second time, by nine months consecutive to 
the period covered by the WBV 2022/22. Effectively, this means that the 6-month 
statutory time limit has been extended to 15 months for all asylum applications 
submitted during a period of more than 18 months. The State Secretary’s new and 
consecutive exercise of the authority to extend the time limit gives rise to 
questions: it is unclear, including in the light of Article 4(1) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive, how the WBV 2023/3 relates to the immediately preceding 
decree extending the time limit. 
13 It is unclear whether (and if so how) every decree by which the State Secretary 
exercises the authority enshrined in point (b) of the third subparagraph of 
Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive should be reviewed exclusively 
against the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of the extension, or 
whether it is also relevant that the decree follows another extension that 
immediately preceded it. In a situation where the number of asylum applications is 
structurally higher than in previous years, and is expected to remain so, the 
Division considers it plausible that the State Secretary needs time to adapt his 
decision-making capacity to that new situation, in order to comply both with 
Article 4(1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive and with the general time limit of 
six months under Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive. By extending 
the statutory time limit by nine months, the State Secretary has the opportunity to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE-489/24 
 
6  
increase his decision-making capacity during that time, while also having more 
time to examine the asylum applications with due care. 
14 Even so, the Division wonders how often the State Secretary may extend that time 
limit for subsequent and consecutive periods before this becomes incompatible 
with the purpose and useful effect of the Asylum Procedures Directive. In the 
Division’s view, these could imply that the authority under point (b) of the third 
subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive cannot be 
applied repeatedly if the increase in the number of asylum applications continues, 
or appears to continue, for an extended period, and the determining authority is 
structurally unable, in spite of its efforts, to increase its decision-making capacity 
to a level at which it can completely and adequately examine the asylum 
applications within 6 months: if so, the general time limit for completing the 
procedure for examining each asylum application could structurally become 
15 months, instead of the general 6-month time limit defined in Article 31(3) of 
the Asylum Procedures Directive. 
Request to join this case with case C-662/23 
15 In its judgment of 8 November 2023 making the reference, 
ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4125, the Division has already asked the Court of Justice for 
a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of point (b) of the third subparagraph of 
Article 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive in connection with the 
WBV 2022/22. In that case, the Division wished to ascertain how the phrase ‘a 
large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply 
for international protection’ should be interpreted, how that phrase relates to the 
phrase ‘making it very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the 
six-month time limit’, and whether any other circumstances may be taken into 
account in its assessment. 
16 The present judgment is connected to that judgment in Case C-662/23: here too 
the question is whether, on the basis of the introductory part and point (b) of 
Article 42(4) of the Vw 2000, it was lawful for the State Secretary, by way of the 
WBV 2023/3, to extend by nine months the six-month statutory time limit for 
deciding on asylum applications lodged from 1 January 2023 until (at the latest) 
1 January 2024. 
17 Moreover, the Division does not believe that the circumstances that led to the time 
limit being extended by way of the WBV 2022/22 and the WBV 2023/3 will 
change to such an extent within the foreseeable future that the State Secretary will 
once again be able to conclude the procedure for examining asylum applications 
within six months: the State Secretary has now passed a third successive decree 
extending the time limit, in the form of a WBV 2023/26, which applies to asylum 
applications lodged from 1 January 2024 until (at the latest) 1 January 2025.  
18 The answers of the Court of Justice to the additional questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling, in conjunction with the questions referred in the judgment of 
SAFITA 
 
7 
8 November 2023, are needed for the purpose of reviewing each successive 
decree. Accordingly, the Division asks the Court to join the present case with 
Case C-662/23. 
Request for an expedited procedure (PPA) 
19 The Division requests that the expedited procedure (PPA) be applied. The 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern a vital part of the asylum 
procedure, and prolonged uncertainty about the outcome of the preliminary ruling 
proceedings will impact tens of thousands of foreign nationals who have applied 
for asylum in the Netherlands during the period in question. The delay affects the 
respect for their fundamental rights, specifically the right to asylum (Article 18 of 
the Charter), and the right to family life (Article 7 of the Charter) given that it is 
possible to apply for family reunification only after the asylum application has 
been granted. 
20 Moreover, since many foreign nationals are appealing against the failure to decide 
within the six months permitted, on grounds of the confusion about the time limit 
within which the State Secretary is required to decide on asylum applications, the 
practical decision-making process could suffer further delays.