Regular procedure


Country Report: Regular procedure Last updated: 18/03/21


Dutch Council for Refugees Visit Website

The general asylum procedure (Track 4) is divided into a Regular Procedure (Algemene Asielprocedure) of 8 days and an Extended Procedure (Verlengde Asielprocedure). The assessment of each asylum application starts in the short asylum procedure. During this procedure the IND can decide to refer the case to the Extended Procedure.


Regular Asylum Procedure (Algemene Asielprocedure)


A decision on an asylum application in the Regular Procedure currently has to be issued within 8 working days.[1] In exceptional cases, this deadline may be extended by 6, 8 or 14 more days. Therefore, the total length of the Regular Procedure is 14, 16 or 22 days depending on the grounds for extending the Regular Procedure [2] These extensions are not frequent in practice. According to Paragraph C1/2.3 of the Aliens Circular, the IND is reticent regarding extensions of the deadline of the Regular Procedure.


In January 2019 the State Secretary of Justice introduced a new policy which means that at the start of the registration procedure every asylum seeker has to complete an extensive form containing questions about their (1) identity; (2) place and date of birth; (3) nationality, religious and ethnic background; (4) date of leaving the country of origin; (5) arrival date in the Netherlands; (6) remains/stay in one or more third countries when appropriate; (7) identity cards or passport; (8) itinerary; (9) schooling/education; (10) military services; (11) work/profession; and (12) living environment and family.[3]


The completed form is followed by a registration interview (Aanmeldgehoor). During the registration interview, questions can be asked about identity, nationality, travel route and family members. Questions about asylum motives are currently explicitly avoided in the registration interview, but the completed form and interview play an essential part in the asylum procedure nonetheless. During the registration procedure, the asylum seeker does not benefit from legal assistance and does not obtain information from the Dutch Council for Refugees.


Seeing the extensiveness of the form and its follow up registration interview, the first interview during the general asylum procedure is now less extensive. It has become a so-called verification interview.   This practise has not been formally regulated. However, on 20 October 2020, the Secretary of State presented a draft proposal to amend the Aliens Decree.[4] The proposed amendment would not only formally establish the registration phase and the registration interview, it would abolish the first interview in the asylum procedure altogether. This also entails that asylum seekers will be asked about their asylum motives during the registration interview, when they do not benefit from any legal assistance yet and when they have not had a rest and preparation period.


The proposal further entails an amendment to the Regular Asylum Procedure and proposes to shorten the procedure from eight to six days. In addition, a possibility is created to extend the General Asylum Procedure in more situations, for example when the asylum seeker changes their statements on an essential point.[5] If adopted, this proposal will likely enter into force in 2021, drastically changing the registration phase of the Regular Procedure.


For a clear understanding of the current Regular Procedure it is important to indicate what happens during these eight days. In short, on the odd days the asylum seeker has contact with the IND and on the even days with his or her legal advisor / counsellor:[6]


Day 1 Start of the actual asylum procedure with first (verification) interview (Verificatie eerste gehoor) On the day of the official lodging of the asylum application, the IND conducts the first (verification) interview with the asylum seeker to ascertain the asylum seeker’s identity, nationality and travel route from their country of origin to the Netherlands. The first interview does not concern the reasons for seeking asylum.  Up until now a lawyer is automatically appointed from day 1. The State Secretary announced that this will be changed in 2021: free legal assistance will be available only when the IND has issued a written intention to reject the asylum application.[7]


Day 2 Review of the first interview and preparation of the second interview The asylum seeker and the appointed lawyer review the first interview after which corrections and additions thereto may be submitted, which happens generally due to interpretation problems, where a misunderstanding easily occurs. The second day also focuses on the preparation of the second interview.


Day 3 Second interview by the IND (Nader gehoor)



In the second and more extensive interview, the asylum seeker is questioned by the IND about his or her reasons for seeking asylum.


Day 4 Review of the second interview and corrections and additions The lawyer and the asylum seeker review the report on the day after the second interview. During this stage, the asylum seeker may submit any corrections and additions to the second interview.


After day 4, the IND assesses the asylum application. It may decide to grant asylum. If not, the IND chooses either to continue the examination in the Regular Procedure or to refer to the Extended Procedure.


Day 5 The intention to reject the asylum application (Voornemen) In case the IND decides to reject the asylum application it will issue a written intention. The intention to reject provides the grounds and reasons for a possible rejection.


Day 6 Submission of the view by the lawyer (Zienswijze)


After the IND has issued a written intention to reject the asylum application, the lawyer submits his or her view in writing with regards to the written intention on behalf of the asylum seeker.


Day 7/8 The decision of the IND (Beschikking) After submission of the lawyer’s view in writing, the IND may decide either to grant or refuse asylum. It may also still decide to continue the examination of the asylum application in the Extended Procedure.


When the IND cannot assess the asylum claim and cannot take a decision within the time frame of the Regular Procedure, it has to refer the case to the Extended Procedure. A decision is taken by the IND on the basis of the information that stems from the first and second interviews, and information from official reports and other country information. A decision to reject the asylum application must be motivated and take into account the lawyer’s view in writing.[8]


Extended Procedure (Verlengde asielprocedure)


In case the IND, after the second interview and the submission of corrections and additional information in the Regular Procedure, decides to continue the examination of the asylum application in the Extended Procedure, the asylum seeker is relocated from a POL to a centre for asylum seekers (Asielzoekerscentrum, AZC). There are no specific conditions under which the IND can refer a case to the Extended Procedure.


The asylum seeker and his or her lawyer are given 4 weeks to submit a viewpoint in writing in response to the intention of the IND to reject the asylum application.[9] The IND has to issue a new intention to reject the asylum application if it changes its grounds for rejecting the claim substantially.


If an asylum application is examined in the Extended Procedure the maximum time limit for deciding is 6 months. According to Article 42(4) of the Aliens Act, transposing Article 31(3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, this time limit can be prolonged by 9 months if, for example, the case is complex or there is an increased number of asylum applications at the same time. In addition to the 9-month prolongation, the time limit can be extended by another 3 months according to Article 42(5) of the Aliens Act.


In a letter dated 15 May 2020 the Secretary of State stated that, due to the ongoing pandemic and its effects on the examination of asylum cases, the statutory decision period for asylum applications would be extended by six months.[10] The Secretary of State referred to the European Commission’s Guidance, which mentioned that Article 31(3)(b) of the Asylum Procedures Directive allows Member States to extend the six months period for concluding the examination of applications.[11] The statutory decision period was extended by six months on 20 May 2020[12]; on 16 December 2020, the Council of State ruled that this extension is not unreasonable and not contrary to Union law.[13]


Prioritised examination and fast-track processing (“Tracks 3 and 5”)


Track 3 foresees a fast-track procedure for applicants who are prima facie likely to be granted protection, for instance nationalities such as Syria and Eritrea. Track 5 applies to the same cases, where nationality or identity documents have not been submitted. There is no prioritised examination and fast-tracking processing in practice, as neither Track 3 nor Track 5 were applied in 2018 and 2019.


Personal interview


The law requires the IND to organise a personal interview for all asylum seekers.[14] Every asylum seeker is interviewed at least twice, with the exception of applications dealt with in the Dublin Procedure (Track 1) and the Accelerated Procedure (Track 2). The first (verification) interview is designed to clarify nationality, identity and travel route. It has become less exhaustive in 2019 following the introduction of an extensive form and a follow-up interview at registration stage. In the second interview the asylum seeker is able to explain the reasons for fleeing his or her country of origin.[15]




The asylum seeker is to be interviewed in a language which he or she may reasonably be assumed to understand.[16] This means that in all cases an interpreter is present during the interviews, unless the asylum seeker speaks Dutch.[17] The IND may only use certified interpreters by law.[18] However, in certain circumstances the IND may derogate from this rule, for example, when in urgent situations there is a need for an interpreter or if an asylum seeker speaks a very rare dialect.[19] Interpreters are obliged to perform their duties honestly, conscientiously and must render an oath.[20] The IND uses its own code of conduct, which is primarily based on the general code of conduct for interpreters.[21] The Legal Aid Board arranges for an interpreter in order to facilitate the communication between asylum seekers and their lawyer. They are allowed to make use of the “interpreter telephone”. This service is provided by Concorde and paid by the Legal Aid Board.[22]


Gender and sexual orientation


The asylum seeker can express the wish to be interviewed by an employee of the IND of his or her own gender; this includes interpreters as well. This may make it easier for an asylum seeker to speak about issues such as sexual violence.[23]


In the past, there have been concerns about the questions asked during interviews conducted with persons that had been persecuted because of their sexual orientation. These persons had been questioned for example about their sexual behaviours and their feelings.[24] In a judgment of 2 December 2014, the CJEU clarified the methods by which national authorities may assess the credibility of the declared sexual orientation of applicants for international protection.[25] As a result, the Council of State now considers that the fact that asylum seekers cannot furnish sufficient information about his attachment to the gay community (be it in the Netherlands or in his/her country of origin) is not a decisive element in the conclusion of a lack of credibility.[26]


The IND’s work instruction 2015/9 has been followed by new IND work instructions: 2018/9 and 2019/17. Work instruction 2019/17 is currently in force and lays down the elements that have to be taken into account while assessing the credibility of the one’s sexual orientation. These include the following: the private life of the asylum seeker; his/her current and previous relationships and contacts with LGBT communities in the country of origin and in the Netherlands; discrimination, repression and persecution in the country of origin. The emphasis is put on the personal experiences of the asylum seeker. However, the Secretary of State stressed that the new work instructions 2018/9 and 2019/17 do not entail a new assessment framework compared to work instruction 2015/9. This is also followed by judgments of the Council of State.[27]




The National Ombudsman made recommendations in 2014 concerning the possibilities for civilians to record conversations with governmental institution.[28] One of the recommendations is that a governmental institution should not, in principle, refuse the wish of a civilian to record a hearing or conversation with a governmental institution. This recommendation is also explicitly applicable in relation to asylum seekers and the IND. The Dutch Council for Refugees has started a pilot on 1 December 2016 at AC Zevenaar which entails that there is a possibility to record the interview. Since 2017 the possibility to record interviews is provided to all asylum seekers on all applications centres. Asylum seekers must give notice of the wish to record the interview in advance. In practice, however, interviews are rarely recorded.


On day 2 and 4 of the regular asylum procedure, the asylum seeker and his or her lawyer have the possibility to submit any corrections and additions they wish to make regarding the interview that took place the day before. A record of the interviews can be very supportive by the making of any corrections and submissions. On day 6, after and if the IND has issued a written intention to reject the asylum application, the lawyer submits his or her view in writing with regards to the written intention on behalf of the asylum seeker. If the lawyer’s view is not submitted on time (i.e. by day 6 of the general asylum procedure), the IND may decide without considering that view.[29]


IND Task Force: written interview


In March 2020, 15,350 asylum applications that were all lodged before 1 April 2020 were passed on to a newly established IND Task Force, with the aim of clearing the IND’s backlogs. The written interview was introduced as a measure to clear the backlogs faster. The IND hopes that by using a form, it will be able to decide more quickly on asylum applications. Asylum seekers fill in the form themselves at the IND. Currently, the written interview is limited to asylum seekers with the following nationalities: Syrian, Yemenite, Eritrean, Turkish and Iranian. Unaccompanied minors are not invited for the written interview, as well as asylum seekers with medical issues or, of course, asylum seekers who are unable to read or write.[30] Important to note is that the IND will always carry out an interview in person if they cannot decide positively on the asylum application on the basis of the written interview. It is not mandatory to participate in the written interview. If an asylum seeker does not want to fill in the form, a regular interview is carried out.[31] In practice, however, asylum seekers have indicated that they agree to the written interview in fear of having to wait even longer.[32]


COVID-19:  interviews via videoconference


In order to minimise physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, the IND has started conducting videoconference interviews since April 2020. The interviews by videoconference take place via a secure link for video conferencing. Via this link, the asylum seeker is able to speak with the IND staff members working from Zevenaar, Den Bosch, Schiphol or Ter Apel. Lawyers can use the facilities, too. Unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers with medical problems are excluded from videoconference interviews.[33]


At the time of writing, there has only been one case in which the asylum seeker argued that he was put at a procedural disadvantage because of the use of a videoconference interview instead of a physically attended interview. According to the Regional Court of Utrecht, the Secretary of State (IND) gave sufficient reasons as to why he could suffice with a video interview instead of an interview in person. The fact that this way of conducting an interview is different from the usual way – because of the lack of direct contact – does not mean that this method does not meet the (minimum) requirements, according to the Court. Nor has it emerged that the third-country national would have made other statements during an interview in person than during an interview via video connection. The Court has also not found that the third-country national did not understand the interpreter and / or the person who conducted the interview.[34]





Appeal before the Regional Court


In the short asylum procedure, an asylum seeker whose application for asylum is rejected on the merits within the framework of the short asylum procedure has one week to lodge an appeal before the Regional Court (Rechtbank).[35] In the extended asylum procedure an appeal after a rejection of the asylum claim has to be – depending on the grounds for rejection – lodged within 1 or 4 week(s). Claims rejected as manifestly unfounded, dismissed as inadmissible, or rejected following implicit withdrawal or abandonment have to be lodged within one week.


The appeal against a negative in-merit decision in the short or extended asylum procedure has automatic suspensive effect, except for situations where the claim is deemed manifestly unfounded for reasons other than irregular presence, unlawful extension of residence or not promptly reporting to the authorities.[36]


The concept of “manifestly unfounded” (kennelijk ongegrond) application is defined in Article 30b(1) of the Aliens Act as encompassing the following situations:

  1. The applicant has raised issues unrelated to international protection;
  2. The applicant comes from a safe country of origin;
  3. The applicant has misled the Minister by providing false information or documents about his or her identity or nationality or by withholding relevant documents which could have a negative impact on the application;
  4. The applicant has likely in bad faith destroyed an identity or travel document;
  5. The applicant has presented manifestly inconsistent and contradictory statements or false information, rendering the claim clearly unconvincing;
  6. The applicant has lodged an application only to postpone or delay the execution of a removal order;
  7. The applicant has lodged an admissible subsequent application;
  8. The applicant has irregularly entered or resided in the Netherlands and has not reported to the authorities as soon as possible to apply for international protection, without valid reason;
  9. The applicant refuses to be fingerprinted;
  10. There are serious grounds to consider that the applicant poses a risk to national security or public order;
  11. The applicant has been expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order.


In cases where the appeal has no automatic suspensive effect, a provisional measure has to be requested. In case the request for a provisional measure is granted the appeal has suspensive effect, which means that the right to accommodation is retained and the asylum seeker may remain in Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) accommodation.


The judgment of the EU Court of Justice of 19 June 2018 in the case Gnandi[37] has led to a major discussion in Dutch case law about the suspensive effect of appeals in asylum cases. In the Netherlands the judgment of the Court is especially relevant for cases in which the appeal does not have suspensive effect. In those cases, the asylum seeker can request a provisional measure, but while a decision on this request has not yet been made, the asylum seeker may be placed in detention on the basis of Article 59, first paragraph, under a, of the Aliens Act. Also, the asylum seeker is not entitled to reception once the departure period has expired.


According to the Council of State, detention was no longer possible on the basis of Article 59, first paragraph, under a of the Aliens Act in cases where the asylum seeker is awaiting a decision on the request for a provisional measure.[38] The Council of State concluded in this case that an asylum seeker can legally remain in the Netherlands during the period for lodging an appeal and during the appeal itself.[39] The asylum seeker concerned had been detained in a removal detention centre after his asylum application was rejected as manifestly unfounded. The removal detention was subsequently considered to be illegal and the measure was lifted. Previously, the Council of State had put preliminary questions to the  CJEU.[40] The CJEU indicated that Directives 2008/115 and 2013/32 should be interpreted as precluding an asylum seeker, whose application has been rejected as manifestly unfounded, from being held in detention for the purpose of expulsion while he legally remains in the Netherlands until judgment is given on his request for a provisional measure.[41] Should the State Secretary want to detain asylum seekers during this period, which is only possible on the basis of the provisions of the Reception Directive, the law will have to be amended.


It was initially unclear whether the Gnandi judgment was applicable in cases in which an asylum seeker makes a second or subsequent application. However, the Council of State concluded that, in a case involving a fourth asylum application with the asylum seeker having been placed in detention, the Gnandi judgment did apply.[42] As a result, the legal effects of the return decision were suspended.


According to the Council of State the Gnandi judgment is also applicable in case the asylum application was rejected in the border procedure.[43]


Scope and intensity of review


The intensity of the judicial review conducted by Regional Courts (administrative judges) changed in 2016. According to the Council of State’s judgment of 13 April 2016, Article 46(3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive does not impose a general intensity of judicial review under administrative law in asylum cases and thus not in cases regarding the credibility of an asylum seeker’s statements in particular. In the Dutch context, the Regional Court is not allowed to examine the overall credibility of the statements of the asylum seeker intensively (full review). This is, according to the Council of State, due to the fact that the IND has specific expertise to verify statements of the asylum seeker and is therefore in general in a better position to examine the credibility of the claim. An administrative judge can never substitute his or her own opinion on the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statements for that of the authorities. Where contradictory or inconsistent statements are made by the asylum seeker, the review can, however, be more intensive; this is different than it used to be. The other elements – not the credibility of the statements – for assessing whether the asylum seeker qualifies for international protection (de zwaarwegendheid) have always been reviewed intensively by Regional Courts.


Regional courts thus rule whether the grounds of a decision of the IND is valid. When the grounds are not valid then the IND has to make a new decision. And of course the regional courts take into account the grounds for appeal from the asylum seeker and the arguments of the IND.


Furthermore, when assessing the appeal, the Regional Court takes into consideration all the new facts and circumstances which appear after the decision issued by the IND. This is the so-called ex nunc examination of the appeal.[44]


Onward appeal before the Council of State


After a decision in the short and extended asylum procedure is taken by the Regional Court, either the asylum seeker and/or the IND may appeal against the decision of the regional court to the Council of State.[45] The IND makes use of this possibility especially in matters of principle, for example if a court judges that a particular minority is systematically subjected to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Council of State carries out a marginal ex tunc review of the (judicial) judgment of the Regional Court and does not examine the facts of the case.[46]


In April 2017, the Council of State referred preliminary questions to the CJEU on whether an onward appeal in asylum cases should have automatic suspensive effect. The Council of State in doing so referred to the Return Directive, the Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 47 of the EU Charter on the right to an effective remedy. On 26 September 2018 the CJEU ruled that for an onward appeal in asylum cases to have automatic suspensive effect cannot be derived from the APD, Return Directive and the EU Charter.[47] Following this judgment, the Council of State ruled on 20 February 2019 that an onward appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect.[48] As a result, a provisional measure from the president of the Council of State is needed to prevent expulsion.


Initially, a provisional measure could only be requested in case of urgency, such as imminent deportation, detention or termination of reception, but this condition no longer applies. The Council of State changed its course as a result of the ECtHR judgment in A.M v. The Netherlands of 5 July 2016.[49] According to the EctHR appeal on the Council of State, in its existing form, did not qualify as an effective remedy. The Council of State made clear that it is no longer necessary to wait until a expulsion date has been set, an asylum seeker can now submit a request for a provisional measure at the time of appeal.[50] Also, the Council of State made clear that a request for a provisional measure preventing expulsion will be granted if the asylum request is considered to have an arguable claim in the sense of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).[51] If granted, a provisional measure allows for reception facilities.


All decisions of the appeal body are public and some are published.[52] There are no obstacles in practice with regard to the appeals in asylum cases. However, asylum seekers are not generally informed about their possibility to appeal, time limits etc. but if they have specific questions they can address them to the Dutch Council for Refugees. The representatives of the asylum seekers are responsible for the submission of the appeal.


Legal assistance


Every asylum seeker is entitled to free legal assistance.[53] To ensure this right, the following system has been designed:


Free legal assistance at first instance


To register the actual asylum application the asylum seeker has to go to an Application Centre. These Application Centres have schedules where an asylum lawyer can subscribe. For instance, if five asylum lawyers are scheduled on a Monday they are responsible for all the asylum requests which are made that day. Those lawyers are also physically present at the centre all day. The Legal Aid Board (Raad voor de Rechtsbijstand), a state-funded organisation, is responsible for this schedule and makes sure that sufficient lawyers are listed on the schedules every day. Therefore, every asylum seeker is automatically appointed a lawyer. On the other hand, in case there are too many applications on one day, it may also happen that lawyers are forced to take on too many cases.


An appointed lawyer from the Legal Aid Board is free of charge for the asylum seeker. However, an asylum seeker may choose a lawyer him- or herself. If this self-appointed lawyer is recognised by the Legal Aid Board as an official asylum lawyer, the Legal Aid Board will pay for the costs. This happens in the vast majority of cases. There are no limitations to the scope of the assistance of the lawyer as long as he or she gets paid. Lawyers are paid for eight hours during the procedure at first instance. The Dutch Council for Refugees has criticised the fact that the contact hours between lawyers and their clients are limited in this system.


Last year’s AIDA report mentioned that the Dutch Secretary of State had announced that she was drafting a proposal to adjust the Aliens Decree which would limit the free legal assistance at first instance. This measure was part of the 2017 Coalition Agreement of the Dutch administration. On 9 April 2020, the Secretary of State announced that free legal assistance would be kept in place. On the same day, however, it was announced that asylum seekers would be exempt from receiving legal penalties in case the IND does not decide upon their application within the legal time frame.[54]


The Dutch Council for Refugees also provides legal assistance. During the rest and preparation period (see Registration), the Dutch Council for Refugees offers asylum seekers information about the asylum procedure. Asylum seekers are informed about their rights and obligations, as well as what they might expect during the asylum procedure. Counselling may be given either individually or collectively. During the official procedure, asylum seekers may always contact the Dutch Council for Refugees, in order to receive counselling and advice on various issues. In addition, representatives of the Dutch Council for Refugees may be present during both interviews at the request of the asylum seeker or his or her lawyer. The Dutch Council for Refugees has offices in most of the reception centres.


Free legal assistance on appeal


At the appeal stage of the asylum procedure, asylum seekers continue to have access to free legal assistance and no merits test applies.[55] Every asylum seeker has access to free legal assistance under the same conditions. However, the lawyer can decide not to submit any written opinion – on day 6 of the short asylum procedure – if they think the appeal is likely to be unsuccessful. In this scenario the lawyer has to report to the Legal Aid Board and the asylum seeker can request for a “second opinion”, meaning that another lawyer takes over the case.[56] This only happens in exceptional cases. On the one hand, the intention of the legislator is that the same lawyer will represent the asylum seeker during the whole procedure. On the other hand, if the lawyer does not submit a written viewpoint, this would be considered as ‘malpractice’ because submitting a written viewpoint is actually the core of the lawyer’s job during the whole procedure. Even if the lawyer is strongly of the opinion that a written viewpoint will not be of any use it may not be the case in future circumstances, for example in case of a subsequent application. Only after several recognised ‘malpractices’ can an asylum lawyer be penalised. The gravest penalisation is disbarment.


The amount of financial compensation for lawyers who represent asylum seekers can be an obstacle. Some lawyers consider the amount of time to prepare a case, and therefore the compensation they get, as too little. This means that it is possible that some lawyers spend more work on a case than they get paid for or that some cases are not prepared thoroughly enough. Alongside this, due to the economic crisis, more cutbacks had to be made within the state-funded legal aid system.

[1]Article 3.110(1) Aliens Decree.

[2]Article 3.110(2) Aliens Decree. An extension with six days is applied for instance in case an interpreter is not available or documents have to be analysed.

[3]Article 3.109 Aliens Decree, paragraph C1/2.1 Aliens Circular and IND Work instruction 2018/15 Aanmeldgehoren en Verificatie eerste gehoren.

[4]Ministry of Justice and Security, Wijziging Vreemdelingenbesluit i.v.m. regelen aanmeldfase, available in Dutch at:

[5]See also: Dutch Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken, ACVZ), Advies over het regelen van de aanmeldfase en het vervallen van het eerste gehoor in de algemene asielprocedure, December 2020, available in Dutch at:

[6]Article 3.112-3.115 Aliens Decree.

[7]State Secretary of Justice & Security, 15 November 2019, available in Dutch at:; and State Secretary of Justice & Security, 19 December 2019, available in Dutch at: .

[8]Article 42(3) Aliens Act.

[9]Article 3.117 Aliens Decree.

[10]Dutch Parliament, 19637-2605, 15 May 2020, Gevolgen richtsnoeren Europese Commissie voor beslistermijnen IND, available in Dutch at:

[11]European Commission, Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement, 17 April 2020, available at:

[12]WBV 2020/12, 20 May 2020, available in Dutch at:

[13]Council of State, Decision No 202005098/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:3020, 16 December 2020.

[14]Article 3.112 Aliens Decree.

[15]Article 3.113 Aliens Decree.

[16]Article 38 Aliens Act.

[17] IND, Toelichting inzet tolken, February 2014, available in Dutch at, 1.

[18]Article 28(1) Law on Sworn Interpreters and Translators.

[19]Article 28(3) Law on Sworn Interpreters and Translators.

[20]Frits Koers et al, Best practice guide asiel: Bij de hand in asielzaken, Raad voor de Rechtsbijstand, Nijmegen 2012, 38.

[21]IND, Toelichting inzet tolken, February 2014, 5.

[22]Secretary of State Decision No lNDVITI3-273, 1 April 2013, 110.

[23]Paragraph C1/2.11. Aliens Circular.

[24]Lieneke Luit, Pink Solution, inventarisatie van LHBT asielzoekers (Inventory of LGBTI asylum seekers), available in Dutch at:

[25] CJEU, Joined Cases C‑148/13, C‑149/13 and C‑150/13 A, B and C, Judgment of 2 December 2014.

[26]Council of State, Decisions No 201208550/1, No 201110141/1 and No 201210441/1, 8 July 2015.

[27]See: Council of State, Decision No 201807042/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:1885, 12 August 2020.

[28]Ombudsman, Report 2014/166, November 2014.

[29]Article 3.114 Aliens Regulation.

[30]IND, Written interview, not dated, available in English at:

[31] IND, Written interview, not dated, available in English at:

[32]Dutch Council for Refugees, Quickscan Taskforce, 19 November 2020, available in Dutch at:

[33]IND, Procesbeschrijving Telehoren, 14 July 2020, available in Dutch at:

[34]Regional Court of Utrecht, Decision No NL20.13775, 5 January 2021.

[35]Article 69(2) Aliens Act.

[36]Article 82(2)(c) Aliens Act, citing Article 30b(1)(h).

[37]CJEU, C-181/16, 19 June 2018.

[38]Council of State, Decision no 201710445/2/V3, 27 August 2018.

[39]Council of State, Decisions No 201710445/2/V3 and 201805258/1/V3, 27 August 2018.

[40]Council of State, Decision No 201703937/1, 19 April 2018.

[41]CJEU, C-269/18, 5 July 2018.

[42]Council of State, Decision no 201903236/1, 29 January 2020.

[43]Council of State, Decision no 201808923/1, 5 June 2019.

[44]Article 83 Aliens Act.

[45]Article 70(1) Aliens Act.     

[46Tweede Kamer, Explanatory notes on the implementation of the recast Asylum Procedure Directive,      Vergaderjaar 34 088, number. 3, 2014–2015, 22 and Chapter 8.5 GALA.

[47] CJEU, Case C-175/17 and C-180/17, X and Y v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, 26     September 2018.

[48] Council of State, Decision No 201609659/1/V2 and 201609659/4/V2, 20 February 2019.

[49]ECtHR, no. 29094/09, 5 July 2016.

[50]Council of State, Decision no. 201609138/3, 20 December 2016.

[51]Council of State (Judge for provisional measures), Decision 201609138/3/V2, 20 December 2016.

[52]Decisions of the Regional Courts and Council of State may be found at:

[53]Article 10 Aliens Act.

[54]Dutch Parliament, No 19 637-2598 No 4, 9 April 2020, available in Dutch at:

[55]Circular on payments legal aid in the new asylum procedure, 1 July 2010, available in Dutch at:

[56]Article 12 Legal Aid Act.


Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation