The Council of State decides on this case following the CJEU Judgment on the request for a preliminary ruling (C-180/17) originated in this regard.

Dutch law does not provide for automatic suspensive effect in asylum cases before the Council of State. Suspensive effect only applies to proceedings at the district court. This means that although third-country nationals may await the hearing of their appeal in the Netherlands, they may not do so in respect of their appeal to the Council of State. 

The Council of State submitted a request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg in March 2017.

The Court of Justice answered those questions in September 2018 and held that the Asylum Procedures and Return Directive did not preclude the Dutch provision. This means that it does not follow from that Directive that appeal must have suspensive effect 'ipso jure'. 

The Council of State applied that answer in its rulings of 20 February 2019. It noted that no automatic 'suspensive effect' is in accordance with European law. This means that third-country nationals do not automatically have to be given the possibility to await their appeal in the Netherlands. They do not have a right of residence either in the interim on the basis of which they can claim continuation of a previously granted rent and healthcare allowance. 

Notwithstanding, this does not prevent the interim relief judge of the Council of State from giving the third-country nationals the possibility to await their appeal in the Netherlands in certain cases. Consider in this context cases in which a so-called 'arguable claim' under Article 3 ECHR is brought. In such cases, the interim relief judge has already been ruling 'in principle' since December 2016 that third-country nationals must not be returned as long as the proceedings on appeal are still in progress.