Registered before the CJEU under C-662/23 

A Turkish applicant complained about the length of the determination of his asylum application before the State Secretary. The latter argued that the delay is due to a large number of asylum applications and that the maximum of 15 months for decision-making was not exceeded. The court of the Hague allowed the appeal, ordered the State Secretary to conduct the personal interview within 8 weeks of the date of the ruling and to take a decision within 8 weeks after the interview. The State Secretary appealed and argued that due to a high number of asylum applications, they extended the deadline to process the applications. The State Secretary provided figures for the last 9 years to show the significant increase of asylum applications, without counting the number of displaced Ukrainian nationals. The State Secretary argued that Article 31(3)(3)(b) of the recast APD allows for the extension of the decision period in the event of a more gradual increase in the number of asylum applications, in order to guarantee careful and proper processing of asylum applications, as required under Article 31(2) of the recast APD.

After an analysis of the EU and national law and based on the above-mentioned, the Council of State decided to stay the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU on interpretation of Article 31(3)(3) b) of the recast APD:

1a. Can the determining authority use its power to extend the decision period from six months in the case of a large number of applications for international protection submitted simultaneously within the meaning of point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the recast APD, if the increase in the large number of applications for international protection occurs gradually over a certain period of time and as a result it is very difficult in practice to complete the procedure within the six-month period? How should "simultaneously" be interpreted in this context?

1b. Which are the criteria to be used to assess whether there is a "large number" of applications for international protection, as referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the recast APD?

2. Is there a time limit on the period in which an increase in the number of applications for international protection must occur in order to still fall within the scope of point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the recast APD? And, if so, how long can this period last?

3. When assessing whether it is very difficult in practice to complete the procedure within the six-month period referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the recast APD - also in the light of Article 4(1) of the recast APD - circumstances that cannot be traced back to the increase in the number of applications for international protection, such as the fact that the determining authority is faced with backlogs that already existed before the increase in the number of applications for international protection or with a lack of human capacity?