Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Netherlands
Country of Decision : Netherlands
Court Name : NL: Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State]]
Date of decision : 20/02/2019
Type : Judgment
ECLI : ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:457
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : 201609659/1/V2; 201609659/4/V2.

Applicants (Russia) vs Court of The Hague [Utrecht seat, Decision December 15, 2016 in cases no. 16/26603 and 16/26604]

The Council of State decides on this case following the CJEU Judgment on the request for a preliminary ruling (C-180/17) originated in this regard.

Dutch law does not provide for automatic suspensive effect in asylum cases before the Council of State(ABRvS). Suspensive effect only applies to proceedings at the district court. This means that although third-country nationals may await the hearing of their appeal in the Netherlands, they may not do so in respect of their appeal to the ABRvS. 

The ABRvS submitted a request for prelimenary ruling to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg in March 2017.

The Court of Justice answered those questions in September 2018 and held that the Asylum Procedures and Return Directive did not preclude the Dutch provision. This means that it does not follow from that Directive that appeal must have suspensive effect 'ipso jure'. 

The ABRvS Division applied that answer in its rulings of 20 February 2019. It noted that not automatic  'suspensive effect' is in accordance with European law. This means that third-country nationals do not automatically have to be given the possibility to await their appeal in the Netherlands. They do not have a right of residence either in the interim on the basis of which they can claim continuation of a previously granted rent and healthcare allowance. 

Notwithstanding, this does not prevent the interim relief judge of the ABRvS from giving the third-country nationals the possibility to await their appeal in the Netherlands in certain cases. Consider in this context cases in which a so-called 'arguable claim' under Article 3 ECHR is brought. In such cases, the interim relief judge has already been ruling 'in principle' since December 2016 that third-country nationals must not be returned as long as the proceedings on appeal are still in progress. 

Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures; Effective remedy; Non-refoulement; Return/Removal/Deportation; Second Instance determination;

Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE;

EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU

Netherlands,NL: Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State]], Applicants (Russia) vs Court of The Hague [Utrecht seat, Decision December 15, 2016 in cases no. 16/26603 and 16/26604], 20/02/2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:457
NL: Council of State follows CJEU preliminary ruling on suspensive effect for appeals

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=944