Two Turkish applicants were granted an asylum residence permit by decision of 1 September 2021 within the context of family reunification. The permit was valid until 2 July 2026. On 12 January 2026, they submitted an application for an asylum residence permit for an indefinite period. On 2 July 2026, the Minister for Asylum and Migration rejected their applications for a permanent asylum residence permit, and extended the residence documents of the applicants by three years. The minister based this decision on the entry into application of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum on 12 June 2026, stating that no permanent asylum residence permits can be granted from that date.

The applicants appealed this decision, arguing that the Qualification Regulation (QR) does not prohibit the granting of an indefinite asylum residence permit. They contended that the legislator must justify why it has nevertheless chosen to abolish that permit and must take into account the consequences of that decision with regards to the group of foreign nationals to which the applicants belong. They submitted that they had applied under the legislation applicable at that time and would have fulfilled the five-year lawful residence requirement only three weeks after the entry into force of the legislative amendment. They further argued that the immediate abolition had adverse consequences, including the need to repeatedly apply for extensions, practical difficulties travelling abroad for internships, their inability to meet the income requirement for long-term EU residence and the difference in their residence status compared with their parents and youngest sister, who had been naturalised. They argued that the application of the immediate abolition of the indefinite asylum residence permit breached the principles of legal certainty and proportionality in this specific case. On the other hand, the minister maintained that an indefinite permit is contrary to the scheme and purpose of the QR, according to which, under Articles 14 and 19, asylum status must be withdrawn inter alia in the event that the reasons for protection no longer exist. According to the minister, it follows that asylum protection is by definition temporary. The minister further argued that the legislator has discussed this transitional law extensively in parliament and referred to documentation which shows that the legislator has taken into account the consequences of this decision.

The District Court of the Hague, seated in Amsterdam, first examined whether the QR prohibits the granting of an asylum residence permit for an indefinite period. It disagreed with the minister and held that the regulation does not prohibit such permits. The regulation links the right of residence of a person entitled to asylum to the residence permit, rather than to the decision granting international protection status. It noted that Member States are entitled to determine the validity period of residence permits, provided that the permit continues for as long as the person is entitled to international protection. It elaborated further that the regulation also allows Member States to grant asylum holders a stronger residence permit over time, which is no longer dependent on the continuation of international protection status. The court referred, inter alia, to Article 24(1) and (5) of the QR and recital 63 of its preamble, as well as the CJEU judgments in Mohammed Bilali v Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl- BFA) (Case C-720/17, 23 May 2019) and  Mohamed M'Bodj v État belge (C-542/13, 18 December 2014).

The court nevertheless held that the fact that EU law does not preclude the existence of an asylum residence permit for an indefinite period does not prevent the legislator from choosing to abolish it. According to the court, neither EU law nor other higher law requires the continued existence of such a permit.

The court then considered whether the immediate abolition could be set aside through contra-legem review, notwithstanding the prohibition of constitutional review under Article 120 of the Constitution. Such review may be possible when special circumstances have not, or have not fully, been taken into account by the legislator and make the application of a statutory provision so contrary to general principles of law or unwritten law that it must be omitted.

The court examined the circumstances raised by the applicants, including the repeated need to apply for extensions, their inability to meet the requirements for long-term EU residence at that time, the possible difficulties travelling abroad and their different residence position compared with their naturalised family members.

It concluded that these circumstances had been taken into account in the legislator's considerations and that the consequences of the legislative amendment had been foreseen. The court referred to the legislative history, including the government's discussion of the proportionality of the abolition, the possibility of obtaining another permanent residence permit and the options available to asylum status holders after five years of residence. Although the individual circumstances of the applicants were not explicitly discussed in the legislative history, the court considered that the legislator must be deemed to have foreseen the adverse consequences for the group to which they belong. It held that the legislator had consciously decided to abolish the asylum residence permit for an indefinite period with immediate effect, without transitional arrangements for pending applications.

The court acknowledged that the absence of transitional law made the situation more difficult for the applicants and other status holders in the same group. However, it held that the legislator had deliberately refrained from preventing these consequences and that this choice felt within the domain of the legislator. As the circumstances had been sufficiently taken into account, the court did not examine whether the immediate abolition was contrary to general principles of law or unwritten law.

The court declared the appeals unfounded.