A national of Türkiye, holder of refugee status, submitted a family reunification application on 8 November 2023 for his spouse and their three minor children. As no decision was made within the legally prescribed period, the spouse served a notice of default to the Minister of Asylum and Migration on 10 May 2024. Following continued inaction, she lodged an appeal on 20 June 2024 against the minister’s failure to decide on the application within the prescribed timeframe. In parallel, she submitted a request for interim relief pending the outcome of the appeal. By judgment of 15 July 2024, the District Court of the Hague, seated in Arnhem, upheld the appeal and recognised the urgent need for swift processing of the family reunification application, as the applicant faced criminal charges in Türkiye related to alleged involvement in the Gülen movement, with a prison sentence already handed down and the case pending before the Turkish Supreme Court. Accordingly, the district court ordered the minister to decide on the family reunification application within four weeks, or within a longer period if additional steps were required—eight weeks if omissions needed to be remedied, sixteen weeks if further investigation was necessary, and twenty weeks if both applied. The district court imposed a penalty on the minister of €250 per day of delay, up to a maximum of €37,500. The minister appealed this judgment before the Council of State.

The Council of State recalled its established case law regarding the deadline for taking a decision in family reunification cases, confirming that legally prescribed timeframes of four, eight, sixteen, or twenty weeks—depending on the complexity of the case and any requisite procedural steps—are appropriate. In the present case, the council examined the minister’s implementation of the ‘first in, first out’ (FIFO) principle, which mandates processing family reunification applications in chronological order of receipt. The council held that the judiciary is not required to consider the FIFO principle when ruling on legally prescribed deadlines for decision or determining penalty payments for non-compliance. The council emphasised that the FIFO principle does not override the legal safeguards afforded by timely decision-making. The council also emphasised the importance of expeditious family reunification procedures, noting that excessive delay undermines the objectives of the Family Reunification Directive and infringes upon fundamental rights protected under Articles 7 and 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The council observed that despite a steady increase in family reunification applications, the percentage of applications decided within the legally prescribed period has significantly declined. The council noted the minister increased decision-making staff but was facing limits on further expansion and was exploring ways to improve efficiency. The council also recognized that since 15 January 2024, the minister has applied FIFO principle in processing family reunification applications, with the objective of improving efficiency, ensuring procedural fairness by prioritising applicants who have waited the longest, and providing clearer timelines to applicants. However, the council held that the minister’s implementation of the FIFO principle does not justify departing from its established case law or disregarding the deadlines for decision set forth therein.

The council dismissed the minister’s claim concerning the backlog, noting that its case law had already accounted for comparable backlog conditions and had deemed the deadlines for decision reasonable. It reaffirmed that the legally prescribed deadlines had long been clear, and that the minister is responsible for complying with them and managing variations in the number of family reunification applications. Furthermore, the council held that the absence of reference to the FIFO principle in earlier case law did not alter this assessment. It ruled that while the FIFO principle may assist in ordering the processing of applications, it does not relieve the minister of the obligation to comply with legally established deadlines. Therefore, the council confirmed that the twenty-week deadline for decision remained appropriate and that no further extension was justified.

Finally, the council reiterated that courts have discretion to determine penalty amounts within reasonable limits to effectively encourage timely decision-making. Specifically, it found the amount set by the district court to be justified in the present case. The council noted that the district court explicitly asked the minister whether it would comply with the court-imposed deadline, and she replied that she would follow the FIFO principle and not process the application before May 2025. At the appeal hearing, the minister confirmed that she prioritised only cases involving medical urgency. The council viewed this as a refusal to comply with the district court’s order, particularly significant given the urgent need for a timely decision due to ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant in Türkiye. Moreover, the council observed that pending the appeal, the minister revised her position by initiating a project prioritising family reunification applications from sufficiently documented biological nuclear families with minor children, such as the applicant’s family, while continuing to apply the FIFO principle. Consequently, she was able to render a decision in the applicant’s case as early as 1 November 2024, notwithstanding her earlier stance. In conclusion, the council concurred with the district court that the high penalty was justified in this specific case. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the contested judgment.