An Algerian national applied for international protection in the Netherlands on 18 July 2023. The application was rejected on 7 August 2023 as manifestly unfounded. The applicant appealed, and the District Court seated in Utrecht accepted the appeal and annulled the asylum decision. The State Secretary for Justice and Security appealed this decision. The applicant argued that he tried to obtain material reception conditions three times in Ter Apel, but he was sent away without a decision or explanation. He then asked for accommodation again on 21 December 2023, and COA informed him verbally, that he was eligible for accommodation in a so-called process availability location (PBL). The applicant appealed this on 28 December 2023.

The applicant argued also that the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) is not authorised to restrict his freedom of movement without a written order, as it happens in the PBL, and that a designation decision should not be considered sufficient as a basis for this. He also underlined that he did not fall into the target categories accommodated in PBLs, which includes applicants in track 1 (the Dublin procedure) and track 2 (safe countries of origin and persons with protection status in another EU+ country). The applicant was in track 4 (regular asylum procedure). He also added that according to him, the PBL was not suitable for long-term stay. As the State Secretary appealed the district court's decision, the applicant was likely to remain there for several months and so, he argued, his placement for an indefinite period should be considered disproportionate. He also disputed the criteria according to which he was considered to be an applicant with low chances to be recognised as a beneficiary of international protection. He added that the real purpose of PBL seems to be also different from its stated purpose (remaining available for the asylum procedure) and thus, it is an abuse of power.

In its defence, the COA underlined that the placement in PBL was based on an instruction given for the implementation of the relevant article of the law (Aliens Law, Article 55). The notification about the availability of COA should be regarded as an act against which am objection can be lodged, and the court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal lodged by the applicant. Still, COA noted that despite this position, it would still like to receive a judgment on the substance by the court.

The Court of the Hague seated in Groningen first assessed whether an appeal or an objection could be made against the designation of a PBL. It underlined that there was no notification in writing, thus, there was no decision as foreseen under the COA Act. However, the court noted that in views of due care and clarity, the notification should preferably be delivered in written in these cases, so that the reasons can be explained individually and objectively. The notification can be seen as a refusal to admit the claimant to regular accommodation and it can be considered that the right to material reception conditions ends if the claimant does not comply with the notification. As such, it can be equated to a decision on the termination of benefits and can be appealed.

In assessing the substance of the claim, the court noted that – while EU and national law allows for certain restrictions on the freedom of movement for applicants - the restrictions in the present case are inextricably linked to reception in a PBL, and they are not regulated in the Reception Act. While the Aliens Law includes rules for restrictive measures, the decision to place someone in a PBL is not based on those legal provisions. Therefore, there is no basis for the restrictions on liberty in a PBL either. While the Reception Act allows for limitations on the freedom of movement of an applicant, this does not mean that the restrictions can be of that magnitude, as it is currently in a PBL. The court gave the example of days when no appointments are made in the framework of the asylum procedure: in these cases, it is unclear, what is the basis for the restrictions on the applicant's freedom.

Thus, the court concluded that a restriction on freedom of movement is inextricably linked to a placement in a PBL and it does not have a sufficient basis in current laws and regulations. In these circumstances, the COA cannot give an applicant the choice of using this type of accommodation or not receiving accommodation. The appeal against an act that is equivalent to a decision was concluded to be well founded and the court declared it to be annulled. COA was ordered to pay the applicant's legal costs.