The request for a preliminary ruling was made in proceedings between the State Secretary for Justice and Security in the Netherlands and X, a Syrian national, concerning the failure of the State Secretary to take a decision within the statutory six-month time limit, on the application for international protection lodged by X in the Netherlands on 17 February 2023.

X complained about the inaction of the authority before the District Court of the Hague, which was declared inadmissible on 12 December 2023 since the time limit to decide on applications for international protection had been extended by 9 months by a Decree amending the Circular on foreign nationals of 2000 (WBV 2023/13) on 26 January 2023. However, the court held that the duration of that extension was limited to 9 months after the entry into force of the previous Decree WBV 2022/22, which had been adopted on 21 September 2022 and entered into force on 27 September 2022.

The State Secretary appealed the judgment and the Council of State, the referring court, raised a question before the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The Council of State considered that it needed to raise additional questions after the CJEU judgment in C-662/23 (Zimir, 8 May 2025) in which the same EU law provision was interpreted. However, the Council of State wanted to ascertain whether the State Secretary could extend the time limit again through Decree WBV 2023/13.

The Council of State asked whether point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), read in conjunction with Article 4(1), must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, and, if so, under what conditions, decide, on several occasions and consecutively, to extend by a maximum period of 9-months the time limit for the examination of applications for international protection.

The CJEU reminded that, in line with its judgment in Zimir, three cumulative conditions must be met for Member States to be able to extend the six-month time limit:

1. the applications for international protection must be lodged ‘simultaneously’
2. the applications must be lodged by ‘a large number’ of third-country nationals or stateless persons, and
3. it must be ‘very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit’.

Thus, the court highlighted that a gradual increase in the number of applications over an extended period of time is not covered by this provision. Furthermore, it noted that the application of this provision cannot be made with prejudice to an adequate and complete examination of the applications, and that the authority must have the appropriate means to examine them, including sufficient competent personnel.

The CJEU observed that there is nothing in that EU provision that would preclude a priori the possibility of extending the time limit several times and consecutively, if the three conditions are satisfied and if the procedure for examining an application is concluded within a maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of the application.

The CJEU also highlighted that if the number of applications remains persistently high over an extended period, the Member State must allocate to the determining authority appropriate and sufficient means to process them in compliance with the recast APD, within the six-month time limit or within the necessary time for the Member State to comply with that obligation. In line with its judgment in Zimir, the court noted that the time needed must be assessed in the light of the time required to recruit and train competent personnel to process applications in an adequate and complete manner.

For the present case, the CJEU concluded that, after the first extension, the Member State may extend that time limit again, by taking into account the increase in the number of asylum applications. Thus, even if the increase is not significant when compared with the period covered by the previous extension decision, the new extension is permitted only if it is can demonstrate, by duly reasoning and specific evidence, that, despite efforts, it did not have sufficient time to allocate appropriate and sufficient means to the determining authority, specifically through the recruitment and training of competent staff to process applications in an adequate and complete manner within the six-month time limit.

Furthermore, the applicants concerned by the extension must be duly informed in accordance with Article 31(6) of the recast APD about the decision to extend the time limit and if they request, to be informed of the reasons for the decision to extend the time limit and the time frame in which the decision is to be expected.

Thus, the CJEU concluded that “a Member State may decide on several occasions and consecutively to extend the time limit applicable to the procedure for examining applications for international protection lodged before it, provided that that Member State is able to demonstrate, first, that, despite its efforts to deal with the simultaneous inflow of applications for international protection, it did not have sufficient time to fulfil its obligation to provide the determining authority with appropriate and sufficient means to enable it to process those applications in an adequate and complete manner and, second, that the cumulative duration of successive extensions does not exceed either the time necessary for it to comply with that obligation or the maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of a particular application for international protection.”