Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
20/02/2019
NL: Council of State follows CJEU preliminary ruling on suspensive effect for appeals

ECLI
ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:457
Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
No
Original Documents
Type
Judgment
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE;
Reference
Netherlands, Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State], Applicants (Russia) v Court of The Hague [Utrecht seat, Decision December 15, 2016 in cases no. 16/26603 and 16/26604], 201609659/1/V2; 201609659/4/V2. , ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:457, 20 February 2019. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=944
Case history
Related cases:
Abstract

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. 

Country of Decision
Netherlands
Court Name
NL: Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State]
Case Number
201609659/1/V2; 201609659/4/V2.
Date of Decision
20/02/2019
Country of Origin
Russia
Keywords
Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures
Effective remedy
Non-refoulement
Return/Removal/Deportation
Second Instance determination