Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Dutch Council for Refugees Visit Website

The report was previously updated in April 2024.

Note: This overview aims to briefly highlight the key developments from the previous year. As such, no sources are provided here, as they can be found later in the main text.

International protection

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: In 2024, a total of 33,760 asylum applications were lodged in the Netherlands (including repeated applications and family reunification). 32,175 first applications for international protection were lodged, mainly by Syrian (11,526), Iraqi (2,222) and Turkish (1,868) nationals. The total number of first asylum applications decreased slightly from 38,377 in 2023. A total of 1,585 subsequent asylum applications were lodged in 2024, an increase from 1,390 in 2023.[1] 21,180 decisions on first asylum requests were taken during 2024. The overall recognition rate at first instance stood at 75.3%: 24.9% refugee status, 46.8% subsidiary protection, and 3.7% humanitarian protection (see Statistics).
• Growing backlog and ‘pilots’: The backlog of asylum cases continues to grow, reaching more than 50,000 open applications in 2025. The number of cases that exceeds the maximum time limit for deciding of 21 months, also increases rapidly. The IND does not have the capacity to handle all the incoming asylum requests and tries to implement experimental procedural changes to increase the speed of the decision-making process and efficiency of the available personnel. Due to these ‘pilots’, problems arise with some nationalities receiving their decisions much faster, and more complicated asylum requests being decided upon after years of waiting. As a result of these pilots, the asylum procedure has become more chaotic and has resulted in less predictable interview and decision dates (see Regular Procedure – Personal interview).
• Extension of the time limit to issue an asylum decision: The third extension of the time limit to issue an asylum decision was announced on 19 December 2023. This meant that the IND could take 15 months instead of the normal 6 months to decide on asylum requests during 2024. At the time of writing, no such extension has yet been issued for 2025. Whether these extensions were in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive is still uncertain, as preliminary questions have been referred to the CJEU regarding the conditions under which a Member State can use the power to extend the six-month decision making period in the Asylum Procedures Directive if there is a large number of asylum applications at the same time. Even though the conclusion of the Advocate General in this case seems to point towards the unlawfulness of these particular measures,[2] until the Court’s judgment is issued this cannot be said with certainty. As the IND still struggles with capacity problems and clearing the backlog of cases, it is not unthinkable that another extension will be issued for 2025 (See The rest and preparation period).
• New credibility assessment: A new method for assessing asylum claims, introduced on 1 July 2024 and also known as the ‘new credibility assessment’, requires applicants to provide ‘objective evidence’ to substantiate their asylum motives. This evidence must be authentic, original, and fully support the facts underlying the claim. If such evidence is not provided, the asylum motives can still be found to be credible, but applicants must meet the five specific criteria included in Article 4(5) Qualification Directive to have their motives deemed credible without such evidence. The Dutch Council for Refugees has raised concerns that this approach imposes an excessive burden on asylum applicants, as obtaining documentary evidence is often difficult, and may not be in line with EU, ECHR, and international standards for evidence assessment in asylum law (See ‘New credibility assessment’ within the section of this report dedicated to the Personal Interview in the Regular Procedure).
• Suspension of Dublin transfers to Italy: On 5 December 2022, the Italian authorities issued a Circular Letter asking other Member States’ Dublin Units to temporarily halt all Dublin transfers to Italy due to a lack of reception facilities for Dublin returnees. On 26 April 2023, the Council of State judged that there was no more mutual trust with regards to Italy. The main reason for the suspension is the lack of accommodation facilities in Italy, where a transfer to that country could mean that asylum seekers find themselves in a situation of extreme material poverty as outlined in the CJEU judgment Jawo.[3] Following this decision, all Dublin transfers to Italy were suspended and have yet to resume (see Dublin – Suspension of transfers).
• Suspension of certain Dublin transfers to Belgium: On 20 February 2023, the Regional Court of Rotterdam ruled that it is unclear whether an applicant would have access to reception facilities upon returning to Belgium. It concluded that the applicant had provided concrete indications of his risk of being treated contrary to Article 3 ECHR or Article 4 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights if returned to Belgium. Following this judgment, multiple other Regional Courts decided likewise with regards to single men. For families, women and vulnerable people, the principle of mutual trust is still applicable as they receive priority with regards to accommodation in Belgium. Single men were placed on a waiting list, meaning they had to wait for several months. On 13 March 2024, the Council of State ruled that transfers for single men could also continue.[4] It found that even though there are significant problems with the Belgian reception facilities, since asylum seekers can find shelter at locations such as homeless shelters, the situation cannot be said to reach the threshold of the situation of extreme material poverty as outlined in the CJEU judgment Jawo (see Dublin – Suspension of transfers). However, following new information regarding the asylum and accommodation situation in Belgium, the Council of State handled another onward appeal in a Belgian Dublin case on 10 December 2024, for which there has not been a judgment yet.
• Pushback practices in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Romania: Both the Regional Courts and the Council of State issued many judgments during 2023 and 2024 regarding the principle of mutual trust and pushbacks vis-à-vis Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland, and to a lesser degree Romania and Slovenia. The presence of pushbacks is mostly undisputed, but because these illegal activities occur on the outer borders of these countries and do not concern Dublin returnees, Dublin transfers are not suspended. On 29 February 2024, the CJEU concluded that pushbacks do not lead to an automatic suspension of Dublin transfers.[5] Instead, the future risk that a Dublin returnee may be subjected to a violation of their rights must be assessed. Only if Dublin returnees can be victims of pushbacks, is there a possibility of suspension of Dublin transfers (see Dublin – Suspension of transfers). Following this CJEU judgment, numerous cases in the Netherlands have discussed which information the Minister must include in its assessment, concluding that both the asylum applicant’s statements as to earlier experiences in the responsible Member State and their objections to the transfer as well as publicly available country information must be taken into account whilst making the transfer decision.[6]
• Duty to motivate not applying the discretionary clause of Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation: In 2024, there was a lot of discussion regarding the obligation to state reasons for not applying the discretionary clause of Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation (i.e., ‘to examine an application for international protection (…) even if such examination is not its responsibility’). The Council of State concluded that by assessing whether an asylum applicant can be transferred to the responsible Member State, the Minister already takes into account the previous experiences in that Member State, and thus the Minister does not need to state additional reasons for not applying the discretionary clause.[7] Interestingly, the Regional Court of Roermond does not agree with this interpretation, as it views the two assessments as vastly different. Possibly, preliminary questions will be asked to the CJEU if this discrepancy in the jurisprudence persists, as the Council of State has since reiterated its position.[8]
• Designation as ‘safe country of origin’ only when entire territory fulfils criteria: As per Dutch policy, certain countries are designated as a ‘safe country of origin’, meaning that the presumption exists that an asylum seeker from that country does not fear persecution or risk of a treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Asylum seekers from those countries are subjected to the Accelerated Procedure (Track 2). Previously, certain countries were designated as being a safe country of origin with the exception of certain regions. However, on 4 October 2024, the CJEU ruled that a country can only be designated as such if the entire territory is deemed safe.[9] As a result, India and Georgia were removed from the Dutch list of ‘safe countries of origin’, and asylum applicants from those countries were processed under the Regular Procedure (Track 4). Trinidad and Tobago were also removed of the list because just a limited number of asylum applicants from Trinidad and Tobago arrives in the Netherlands (see Safe country concepts – Safe countries of origin). Previously, other countries have been removed from the list for the same reason. According to the author of this report, this may be due to the obligation to reassess the safety of the safe countries of origin every two years.
• Safe third countries: Rwanda is no longer considered as a ‘safe third country’, nor is Jamaica. Chad, Ethiopia and Ghana have been added as safe third countries (see Safe country concepts – Safe third country).
• Article 15(c) Qualification Directive: On 9 November 2023, the CJEU found that, to determine whether a case reaches the high threshold of ‘serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’ meriting subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) Qualification Directive, both the general situation in the area and the individual position and personal circumstances of each applicant need always be taken into account.[10] Following this judgment, the Regional Court of Den Bosch classified as a ‘sliding scale’ this concept that the more it appears that the individual situation of an applicant can increase the risk of becoming a victim of such ‘indiscriminate violence’, the lower the general level of violence in the area needs to be in order to merit subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) Qualification Directive.[11] Following this judgment, two policy changes were made with respect to how Article 15(c) Qualification Directive is assessed in The Netherlands. First, the Minister determines whether an ‘international or domestic armed conflict’ exists in a region or country. Second, the magnitude of the conflict is classified in one of three levels of severity: (a) a conflict that reaches the threshold of Article 15(c) Qualification Directive on its own (‘pure’ 15(c) situation); (b) a ‘high level of indiscriminate violence’; or (c) ‘no sufficient high degree of indiscriminate violence’. The Minister initially decided to only apply the ‘sliding scale’ in the second level, essentially refraining from applying the ‘sliding scale’ if the conflict was said to have ‘no sufficient high degree of indiscriminate violence’. However, the Council of State ruled on 17 July 2024 that this extra threshold was unlawful, and that the ‘sliding scale’ the CJEU judgment appears to establish must be applied in all situations, no matter the severity of the indiscriminate violence.[12] 
• Beneficiaries of international protection from Greece: As all other asylum seekers, beneficiaries of international protection in Greece wait 15 months for their asylum application to be processed. Following a preliminary reference from Germany, on 18 June 2024, the CJEU held that, where Member States cannot declare as inadmissible the asylum application of a recognized refugee in a second Member State because of the serious risk of the applicant being subject to ill-treatment there, the first Member State may conduct a full and up-to-date examination of the application in which it takes full account of the previous decision by the other Member State and of the elements supporting it.[13] Following this CJEU judgment, the IND released an internal information message in which they recognised that the files of beneficiaries of international protection in other Member States who cannot return there have to be requested from the Member State in question (see Safe country concepts – EU Member States).[14]
• National forms of protection: In 2024, a section was added about national forms of protection in the Netherlands (see: National forms of protection). This section contains information about the ‘no fault’ permit, which applicants who have had a final rejection of their asylum claim but who cannot leave the Netherlands through no fault of their own could apply for, on the grounds of Article 3.48 (2)(a) Aliens Decree. It also addresses the possibility of suspension of departure on medical grounds under Section 64 of the Aliens Decree. This form of protection entails a temporary postponement of departure, effectively granting a foreign national a temporary right to reside in the Netherlands to ensure access to essential medical treatment until their departure becomes possible.
• Return decisions: In 2024, a section was added about return decisions (See Return Procedure). Rejections of asylum applications always are emitted together with the corresponding return decision.[15] A return decision always needs to designate a country of return. This has proven difficult if an asylum applicant cannot prove his or her nationality. If asylum applicants fail to establish their country of origin, the IND does not assess whether they face a refoulment-risk in in any potential country of return. According to the IND, determining the country of origin is a prerequisite for conducting a refoulement assessment. The asylum application will be rejected on the grounds that no country of origin is established. In 2024, the Council of State ruled that in these cases the alleged country of origin may also serve as the country of return, even if there has not been a refoulement assessment with regard to this country.[16]

Reception conditions

• Reception conditions: Less than half of the people entitled to reception conditions (i.e. asylum seekers) as well as beneficiaries of international protection who have not been offered housing yet, were staying in regular Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Applicants (COA) reception centres over the course of 2024 (34,675 out of 72,610 people). All other residents stayed at COA emergency locations or crisis emergency locations and/or temporary reception locations managed by municipalities. Different reports highlight how the majority of the (crisis) emergency locations still largely fail to meet the State’s obligations under EU law.[17] While some (crisis) emergency locations have adequate facilities, these are exceptions, and conditions elsewhere are equally distressing, if not worse than last year. The inadequate reception conditions at (crisis) emergency locations are especially alarming due to the long period of stay for up to one and a half years.[18] People suffer severely from a lack of privacy, tranquillity, and suitable nutrition. Sanitary facilities are inadequate and particularly unhygienic at too many locations. Problems with healthcare accessibility exist in almost half of the (crisis) shelters. Additionally, the majority of the (crisis) shelters are detrimental to children, who experience a decline in health and weight loss due to a lack of activities, safe play areas, and healthy food. Large differences between (crisis) shelters reveal that whether asylum seekers are able to experience decent reception in the Netherlands is subject to arbitrariness. Without structural measures, the dire situation in which residents find themselves at the (crisis) emergency locations continues to be without a foreseeable resolution (see Reception conditions).
• Ter Apel: In 2024, no asylum seekers had to sleep out in the open in Ter Apel. However, over the course of 2024 Ter Apel was almost continuously over capacity and urgent measures needed to be taken. As in 2023, COA housed applicants in ‘pre-registration locations’ around Ter Apel, however in 2024 the applicants staying at the ‘pre-registration locations’ had sometimes already undergone the registration process.[19] There were reports of grossly unsatisfactory conditions in some of these ‘pre-registration locations’, among which underweight children due to inadequate food in Assen, severe overcrowding in Assen (700 residents with a capacity of 500) and a duration of stay far exceeding the intended twenty days in both Assen and Leeuwarden.[20] In April, May and September, applicants had to sleep in portakabins (container cabins) at Ter Apel on numerous occasions, and on matrasses on the floor.[21] On 16 September 2024, applicants were once again at risk of having to sleep out in the open, for the first time since 2022.[22] This was narrowly avoided as a neighbouring municipality offered a sports hall as shelter for one night, and the Red Cross provided stretchers for sleeping.[23] The Dutch Inspection of Justice and Security noted that the current long-term stay at Ter Apel and the ‘pre-registration locations’ are detrimental to both the mental and physical well-being of applicants, and repeatedly warned that the safety situation at Ter Apel is unsatisfactory (see Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions).[24]
• Vulnerable people in (crisis) emergency locations: A report from the Dutch Council of Refugees in which 20 (crisis) emergency locations were visited concluded that in 11 locations vulnerable people whose (medical) needs could not be met were present.[25] This includes pregnant women, chronically ill individuals and survivors of physical and sexual violence. Three prominent healthcare NGOs reported that despite medical screenings, applicants with special reception needs are still regularly placed in (crisis) emergency locations that cannot fulfil their needs.[26] Children’s rights NGOs report that in 2024 there are 65% more children residing in (crisis) emergency locations compared to 2023.[27] The Minister has admitted that due to the current lack of reception capacity, it is not possible to adhere to the premise that children should not reside at emergency locations (see Special reception needs of vulnerable groups and Health care).[28]
• Reception of unaccompanied minors: Reports regarding the overcrowding of the facilities for unaccompanied minors in Ter Apel continued in 2024. Unaccompanied minors need to wait in Ter Apel in order to be transferred to one of the few facilities for unaccompanied minors in the country. In January 2024, the Minister already expressed her concern for the shortage of sufficient structural reception places for unaccompanied minors.[29] In December, the Minister stressed that, in the context of the broader lack of reception capacity, there is also a serious lack of reception places for unaccompanied minors.[30] (see Reception of unaccompanied children).
• In 2024, the Council of State ruled, for the first time, on the question of the Enforcement and Supervision Location (HTL) and Article 5 ECHR.[31] The Council of State ruled that the placement of individuals in the HTL does not lead to deprivation of liberty, but merely to a restriction of freedom of movement. More so, it held that even placement in the so-called ROV-room, that is used as a punishment for misbehaving within the HTL, does not lead to deprivation of liberty[32] (see Types of accommodation – Enforcement and Supervision Location (HTL)).

Detention of asylum applicants

• Immigration detention: a total of 4,400 migrants were detained in the Netherlands in 2024 (see Immigration Detention).
• In 2024, a shortage of staff in the detention centers often led to detainees having to stay more hours in their cells. Once there was even a short period in which no new migrant detainees were accepted (see Conditions in detention facilities).

Content of international protection

• Family reunification: On 16 July 2024 a new, stricter policy for family reunification with adult children came into effect. For applications submitted on or after 16 July, an adult child is eligible for family reunification with their parent(s) if they are genuinely dependent on the parent within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Family Reunification Directive. This means that the child is unable to support themselves and the sponsor (the parent) actually provides the necessary material support for the adult child, or that the sponsor appears as the family member most able to provide the required material support. In its judgement of 20 November 2024, the Council of State ruled that a broken family tie between a parent and child may be restored. In particular, it found that the policy of the IND that a broken family tie between parents and children could never be restored for the purpose of falling under the favourable framework for family reunification of beneficiaries of international protection was not in accordance with the Family Reunification Directive and CJEU case law interpreting the concept of real family life.[33] In 2024 there was also an enormous backlogs at the IND regarding applications for family reunification (those filed in November 2024 are expected to be processed starting February 2027. The IND made public the general instructions for handling applications for family reunification by holders of an asylum permit, in order to become more transparent. This Work instruction 2023/2 includes also the instruction that a late submission (exceeding the three-month time-limit) may be considered excusable. Factors taken into account are: the number of days of exceedance (less than two weeks is excusable), the efforts the sponsor has demonstrated to file the application and the exceptional circumstances causing the late submission. With regard to the young adult policy, the Council of State ruled that the then State Secretary (now Minister) may also consider a family tie to be broken if a young adult child has been living separately for a long time and has been proven to ‘shape’ their life independently, even in the situation where the young adult was initially forced to leave their family. Finally, the Council of State has ruled that the mere fact that a family member has entered and stays in the Netherlands during the family reunification procedure, is not a ground to reject the application for family reunification. In other words, the family reunification procedure continues and may lead to approval and issuance of the derived asylum permit to the family member (see Family Reunification).
• Revocation – danger to public order: In response to the CJEU judgements of 6 July 2023, the Dutch policy on revocation had been adjusted in 2023. In 2024, several courts ruled that this policy change is not in line with the CJEU judgements of 6 July 2023. For instance, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Amsterdam ruled that paragraph C2/7.10.3.1 of the Aliens Circular is not in line with the CJEU judgements. The Court ruled that the IND had cumulated the prison sentences for a violent home burglary and a street robbery, which is contrary to the above mentioned CJEU judgements. Additionally, the Court ruled that these crimes, when considered separately, did not constitute a “particularly serious crime”.[34]
• On 24 December 2024, the Dutch government published a draft of the legislative proposal for abolishing the permanent asylum permit.[35] This proposal still needs to be approved by Parliament (see Long-Term residence).

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitutes a short summary of the annex on Temporary Protection in the Netherlands, for further information, see Temporary Protection Netherlands.

• Non-Ukrainian nationals:Initially, displaced non-Ukrainian nationals who had a valid Ukrainian residence permit on 23 February 2022 – whether this was a temporary or a permanent permit – were entitled to temporary protection in the Netherlands. However, this rapidly changed: as of 19 July 2022, non-Ukrainian nationals who merely held a temporary residence permit in Ukraine no longer fall under the scope of the TPD in the Netherlands. For those who had already been registered, their right to temporary protection was to end on 4 March 2023. At the beginning of 2023 the Secretary of State announced that temporary protection for this group would be extended until 4 September 2023 and, following a judgment of the Council of State   on 17 January 2024, temporary protection was extended until 4 March 2024. On 29 March and on 2 April 2024 the Council of State issued provisional measures in seven cases of non-Ukrainian nationals. As a result of legal procedures against the ending of temporary protection, two preliminary references were lodged by Dutch courts to the CJEU: (a) the Regional Court Amsterdam on 29 March 2024, and (b) the Council of State on 25 April 2024. On 19 December 2024 the CJEU ruled in Kaduna (C-244/24 and C-290/24) that Member States are allowed to end at any moment the temporary protection they have voluntary granted (beyond the mandatory scope of the Council Implementing Decision regarding the TPD in the context of Ukraine), even before the maximum duration of the temporary protection mechanism established at EU level has been reached.[36] The Regional Court Amsterdam and the Council of State have to issue their final rulings on this issue, pending which the non-Ukrainian nationals concerned continue to benefit from the rights associated with the TPD.
• Reception laws: Due to extraordinary circumstances as a result of the invasion in Ukraine, the Dutch government found itself unable to provide (emergency) accommodation to the displaced persons within the existing structure. This is the reason that the Dutch government activated, on 1 April 2022, the Relocation Population Act (Wet verplaatsing bevolking), which is state emergency law. To replace the Relocation Population Act a bill was created: the Temporary Act on the Reception of Displaced Persons from Ukraine. This law has passed Parliament. From the moment of enforcement of the law the responsibility of the municipalities to provide for the reception of displaced persons from Ukraine has been transferred from the Relocation and Population Act to the Temporary Act. Thus, the legal basis changed, however nothing has changed for TP beneficiaries in terms of their (right to) accommodation.
• Reception capacity: On 20 October 2023 the initial or general reception center (HUB) at Amsterdam Central Station closed as there were no more places available in reception centers either in or close to the capital. Since 27 February 2024, the HUB at Utrecht Central Station is permanently closed (initially temporary), due to a serious shortage of reception places available in Dutch municipalities. As a result, displaced persons from Ukraine are no longer accommodated by the HUB. They are requested to arrange accommodation themselves or are advised to report to a municipality on their own initiative. In 2024, the pressure on municipalities to provide reception increased. If a displaced person reports to a municipality and there is no available reception place, the municipality must contact the Regional Coordination Centre for Refugee Distribution (RCVS). If no reception places are available in the region, the RCVS must submit a request to the Coordination of Information Ukraine (KCIO)/National Centre for Refugee Distribution (LCVS). The Dutch Council for Refugees has received signals that municipalities refuse reception to displaced persons without first contacting the RCVS and the LCVS. LCVS can check whether reception places are available nationwide. It is currently not clear to the authors how many displaced persons and municipalities this concerns. If displaced persons urgently need a place to stay the night they can contact the Red Cross. As registration in the Persons’ Database (BRP) is not possible if people have not been able to find a municipality where they can be accommodated, people could be left without immediate access to temporary protection and the associated rights.
• Proof of residency: Once a displaced person has been registered in the BRP, they must obtain proof of residency from the IND. At that moment, the IND further assesses whether the person concerned should be granted temporary protection, which means that the IND could refuse temporary protection (and proof of residency). Complaints against the refusal could be made; in case of a refusal from the IND, the entitlement to rights arising from the TPD, such as the right to housing and to work, cease immediately, and the complaint has no suspensive effect, so a provision measure has to be requested before a regional court. Several judgments on requests to grant a provisional measure have been issued. The IND has issued new (follow up) decisions on the written complaints. In some cases temporary protection was granted and the objections were found justified. In many other cases temporary protection was refused by the IND. In most cases the regional courts ruled on the specific situation that the persons concerned already had left Ukraine before the reference date of 27 November 2021. In general, the courts rule that the Minister is allowed to refuse temporary protection in this situation.
• Access to asylum: The following applies to Ukrainian nationals who do not fall within the scope of the Temporary Protection Directive in the Netherlands and who submitted an asylum application at the application center in Ter Apel. From 28 February 2022 until 28 November 2023, a decision moratorium was in place for asylum applications from Ukrainians. This policy is based on Article 43 of the Aliens Act. During this period, the Minister of Asylum and Migration (IND) was obliged to decide on applications in which the decision period of a maximum of 21 months would expire. Other exceptions for instance are: Dublin cases, cases regarding beneficiaries of protection in other EU Member States, and cases involving people suspected of having committed war crimes or considered a threat to public order or national security. Regarding these exceptions, recent information provided by the Dutch government indicate that in 2023 in 390 cases the asylum applications of displaced Ukrainian nationals who do not fall within the scope of the TPD have been processed. In most of these cases, the asylum application was rejected in the context of a Dublin procedure, or the application was withdrawn by the displaced person. As far as is known to the Dutch Council for Refugees, in general, the processing of the asylum applications of this group of Ukrainian nationals, with the exception of aforementioned cases, has not started yet. As a result of the return moratorium, which was in force from 28 February 2022 until 28 February 2023, rejected asylum seekers were not forced to return to Ukraine. This measure, which could be in effect for up to one year, was not formally extended. This is based on Article 45(4) of the Aliens Act. Nevertheless, at the time of writing, the Dutch government has not taken any measures relating to forced returns to Ukraine.
• Processing of asylum application of TP beneficiaries : In the Dutch context, displaced people from Ukraine have to apply for asylum when they want to obtain temporary protection. The processing of the asylum applications is suspended until the temporary protection ends. In general, regional courts justify suspending the processing of the asylum applications. However, some regional courts have ruled that, in accordance with Article 31(5) Asylum Procedures Directive, the asylum application should be assessed within 21 months after the application has been lodged. In two cases an onward appeal has been lodged with the Council of State, but at the moment of writing no rulings of the Council of State regarding this matter have been issued.
• Financial contribution municipal shelter: From 1 July 2024, adult beneficiaries of temporary protection who have income from work, or receive benefits or an allowance from the government must contribute financially to their shelter in a municipality. However, they are left with at least the same monthly amount as temporary protection beneficiaries who only receive the monthly allowance from the municipality. There was a 6-month implementation period so that municipalities could prepare for the implementation of the personal contribution, so municipalities will have fully implemented the scheme by January 2025. To be able to check the obligation to pay a personal contribution, municipalities must be given access to data regarding people’s work and income. Therefore, Article 7 of the Temporary Decree law on the reception of displaced persons Ukraine has included a basis for data sharing between the UWV and municipalities. For this reason, an amendment to the Work and Income Implementation Structure Act (SUWI) law is also needed, which has been sent to parliament. Nevertheless, municipalities can already progress with collecting the personal contribution, on the basis of the obligation in the Regulation for the Reception of Displaced Persons from Ukraine (RooO) for temporary protection beneficiaries to provide the municipality with information on income and family composition.

[1] IND, Asylum Trends: Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in the Netherlands. December 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/42iazFn.

[2] CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Medina, case C-662/23 Zimir, of 12 December 2024, available here.

[3] CJEU, judgment in case C-163/17 Jawo, of 19 March 2019; available here.

[4] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:896, 13 March 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3U3FNKX.

[5] CJEU, judgment in case C-392/22 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, of 29 February 2024, available here.

[6] For example: Regional Court of Den Bosch, Decision No NL24.20074, 18 July 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4kKP7jb and Regional Court of Roermond, Decision No NL23.16882,  ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:10838,12 July 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4kKQw9r.

[7] Council of State, Decision No 202404386/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:5359, 23 December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/41Tu7yi.

[8] Council of State, Decision No 202407656/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:717, 25 February 2025, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4iKBq1Z.

[9] CJEU, judgment in case C-406/22 Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, of 4 October 2024, available here.

[10] CJEU, judgment in case C-125/22 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, of 9 November 2023, available here.

[11] District Court of Den Bosch, judgment in cases NL20.16879 and NL20.16880, of 20 December 2023; available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/41FjOh2.

[12] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2927, 17 July 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40mdLyn.

[13] CJEU, C-753/22, QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 18 June 2024, available at: bit.ly/4fzrJkU.

[14] IB 2024/37 Hofuitspraak beoordeling asielaanvraag statushouders, available in Dutch at: bit.ly/4j2CTSm

[15] Article 40 Aliens Act.

[16] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1970, 8 May 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3PEyI1f.

[17] Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, Brief Toezicht Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid Ter Apel, 15 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WmsWoR; VWN, Onderzoek naar ervaringen en behoeften van vluchtelingen in de opvang, December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40jjZ0F; VWN, Gevlucht en Vergeten? No. 2, January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4hfWkVP.

[18] VWN, Gevlucht en Vergeten? No. 2, January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4hfWkVP.

[19] The information above follows from meetings with the IND, COA, AVIM and the Dutch Council for Refugees. The IND website at time of writing also mentions the possibility of a ‘pre-registration’ at: https://bit.ly/47rYv3m. See also the mention of both registered and unregistered asylum claimants in Assen in RTV Drenthe, ‘Expo Hal Assen blijft nog anderhalf jaar noodopvang asielzoekers’, 17 July 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3DV4tRk, and in Leeuwarden in NOS, ‘Noodopvang Leeuwarden sluit nog voor het nieuwe jaar’, 27 December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WkTPJY.

[20] Ibid; NOS, ‘Noodopvang Leeuwarden sluit nog voor het nieuwe jaar’, 27 December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WkTPJY; RTV Drenthe, ‘Brandbrief heeft effect: opvang in Expo Hal aangepast voor kinderen’, 6 November 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40jQXhL; RTV Drenthe, ‘Brandbrief heeft effect: opvang in Expo Hal aangepast voor kinderen’, 6 November 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40jQXhL; RTV Drenthe, ‘Weinig doorstroom in overvolle Expo Hal in Assen: ‘Afhankelijk van andere centra’’, 29 April 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WkT7MO.

[21] AD, ‘Wéér crisis in Ter Apel: manager stapt op, staatssecretaris doet zoveelste oproep om meer opvangbedden’, 26 April 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Py4htR; NU.nl, ‘Asielzoekers moesten voor het eerst in lange tijd in wachtruimte Ter Apel slapen’, 25 April 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4gSs8k1; NU.nl, ‘Gemeente wil dat slapen in wachtruimtes Ter Apel stopt en geeft azc ultimatum’, 14 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4h6fQUY; NOS, ‘Toch geen buitenslapers bij Ter Apel: Stadskanaal stelt sporthal beschikbaar’, 17 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3DV34Kw.

[22] NOS, ‘COA: noodsituatie Ter Apel, kans dat mensen vannacht buiten moeten slapen’, 16 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4g25LqS.

[23] NOS, ‘Toch geen buitenslapers bij Ter Apel: Stadskanaal stelt sporthal beschikbaar’, 17 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3DV34Kw.

[24] Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, Brief Toezicht Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid Ter Apel, 15 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WmsWoR; Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, Brief Veiligheidsituatie COA locatie Ter Apel, 19 June 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4fWRXxY.

[25] VWN, Gevlucht en Vergeten? No. 2, January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4hfWkVP.

[26] Dokters van de Wereld, Pharos en Rode Kruis, Uitzichtloos in de opvang, 18 December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3BZS9Pb.

[27] Kinderrechtencollectief, ‘65% meer kinderen in noodopvang is onacceptabel’, 22 October 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4jkDDlC.

[28] Aanhangsel van de Handelingen, 2024-2025, nr. 962, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4gXGU92.

[29] KST 27 062, nr. 13, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Wo3f7A.

[30] KST 19637, nr. 3320, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3CiXYHm.

[31] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3565, 11 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3ZRVCs1.

[32] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3564, 11 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4fo8H0C.

[33] CJEU, judgment in case C-279/20 XC, of 1 August 2022; available at: https://bit.ly/4kICYLQ

[34] District Court Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:2884, 5 March 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3FBW4my. See also District Court Middelburg, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:718, 31 January 2025, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/41Frosa.

[35] Draft legislative proposal Asielnoodmaatregelenwet, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40nxVIm.

[36] CJEU, judgment in joined cases C-244/24 and C-290/24 Kaduna and Abkez, of 19 December 2024, ECLI:EU:2024:1308, available here.