THE BOTTOM LINE
- Government delays are not a dead end: Businesses facing hold-ups in securing EU residence documents for their employees have a clear legal path to compel a government decision.
- Action requires process: You cannot simply sue over a delay. A formal notice of default must be sent to the relevant ministry first, creating a final deadline before court action is possible.
- The penalty landscape has shifted: While courts can still impose daily fines for non-compliance, a recent legislative change has removed automatic administrative penalties for the government in immigration cases, making judicial intervention more critical.
THE DETAILS
This case serves as a critical reminder for any company navigating the Dutch immigration system. An applicant who filed an objection on April 1, 2025, against the rejection of their EU residence document application was left in limbo when the Minister for Asylum and Migration failed to issue a decision within the statutory timeframe. After formally notifying the Minister of the failure to act (a notice of default) on September 10 and receiving no response, the applicant took the matter to court. This proactive legal step proved successful, breaking the administrative gridlock.
The District Court of The Hague found the government’s failure to act indefensible. The court’s ruling was not about the merits of the residence document itself, but about the procedural failure. It confirmed that once the legal deadline to decide on an objection has passed, and a formal notice of default has been issued, the government is legally obligated to act promptly. The court ordered the Minister to issue a final decision within four weeks. To ensure compliance, the court attached a penalty of €100 for each day the new deadline is missed, capped at €15,000.
This decision also highlights a crucial change in Dutch administrative law. Previously, the government would be liable for an automatic administrative penalty for such delays. However, the “Act Revising Rules on Failure to Decide Promptly in Immigration Cases,” effective in 2025, eliminated this mechanism for immigration matters. Now, while applicants can still force a decision through the courts, and judges can impose their own judicial penalty as they did here, the automatic financial consequence for the government has been removed. This places a greater emphasis on proactively pursuing legal action to enforce administrative deadlines.
SOURCE
Source: District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag)
