On 23 January 2024, in case Municipality of Westerwolde v Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Centraal Orgaan opvang asielzoekers‚ COA) (C/18230420 / KG ZA 23-241), the District Court of Northern Netherlands in Groningen ruled that the COA must adhere to the maximum occupancy of 2,000 asylum seekers at the Ter Apel reception location agreed with the municipality of Westerwolde and that failure to do so carries a penalty of €15,000 per day with a maximum of €1,500,000. The municipality of Westerwolde brought the present case before the District Court of Northern Netherlands in Groningen arguing that the COA failed to comply with the judgment of 23 January 2024 and has reached the maximum in penalty payments.

The municipality claimed that the COA frequently exceeded the occupancy limit of 2,000 people, including in this figure persons who were only present during the day and did not sleep at the reception centre. However, the COA argued that day-only asylum seekers, who are bused to another location at night, should not count towards the occupancy and that only those sleeping overnight in Ter Apel should be included. The court agreed with the Municipality, interpreting ‘reception' in a broad sense that includes daytime presence and aligns with national legal standards for asylum seeker care set out in the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers Act (Article 3) and the Regulation on benefits in kind for asylum seekers and other categories of foreigners 2005 (Rva 2005, Article 9), which encompass more than just overnight accommodation. The court found COA's restrictive interpretation unconvincing and upheld the Municipality's view, confirming the COA's non-compliance with the occupancy cap, as current levels consistently exceed 2,000.

The COA argued that it is practically impossible to keep occupancy at Ter Apel below 2,000 due to a national shelter crisis, limited housing for asylum seekers with residency status, and an unpredictable influx of new arrivals. The COA cited external challenges, like the housing shortage and limited municipal cooperation, as reasons for exceeding capacity. However, the Municipality countered that the COA is not taking adequate action to spread asylum seekers across other centres, leading to Ter Apel's extreme overcrowding (120-140% capacity compared to other centres at 100%). The court found the COA's claim of ‘impossibility' insufficiently substantiated and concluded that the COA has not demonstrated that it has made efforts to find solutions with the Minister for Asylum and Migration.

Due to COA's ongoing non-compliance with the 2,000-person occupancy limit at Ter Apel, the court imposed a new, higher penalty to incentivize compliance. The court set the penalty at €50,000 per day, up to a maximum of €5,000,000.