In this judgment the Council of State examined the family reunification measure adopted by the government to partially solve the reception crisis in the short term in the Netherlands and which provides for six months waiting period for those whose family reunification was confirmed before they can collect their residence permit and actually enter the Netherlands (this may be done earlier if the sponsor already has suitable accommodation within that period but in practice it means that the total waiting time usually reaches fifteen months). The Council of State held that the measure was contrary to Dutch and EU law. The Council noted that if the State Secretary granted an application for family reunification, it must ensure that the family members are allowed to travel to the Netherlands immediately.

In this case the family of a status holder had to wait for six months before entering the Netherlands. The District Court of the Hague located in Amsterdam ruled in December 2022 that the measure was contrary to the Aliens Act 2000 and the Family Reunification Directive. The State Secretary appealed the ruling.

The Council of State noted that the reception system was under great pressure and agreed with the State Secretary that the situation needed to be improved quickly. However, the Council of State ruled that there was no legal basis in Dutch law for the family reunification measure. It further noted that even if the family reunification measure would have had a legal basis, the implementation of that measure must remain within the limits of Dutch law which as not the case. The Aliens Act 2000 states that family members have three months to collect a provisional residence permit and the State Secretary may not ignore or postpone that deadline. Thus, a waiting period of six months is contrary to this.

With regard to EU law compliance, the Council of State noted that the measure is also contrary to the Family Reunification Directive, as the shortcomings in the asylum reception system do not meet the particularly high threshold required for an exception and the facts submitted by the parties do not show that the family reunification measure is a necessary and suitable solution for the problems in asylum reception.