Case C‑662/23 [Zimir] ( i )

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Request for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State, Netherlands)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) – Procedures for granting international protection – Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Consideration of other circumstances)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Requirement that there be a case pending before the referring court – Answer from the Court that is relevant to the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paragraphs 27-30)
Border controls, asylum and immigration – Asylum policy – Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32 – Procedure for examining an application for international protection – Conditions for the extension of the six-month examination period by the determining authority – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Significant increase in the number of those applications within a short period – Included – Assessment of that increase with regard to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned – Gradual increase in the number of those applications over a long period – Precluded

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32, Arts 4(1) and 31(3), third subpara., point (b))

(see paragraphs 32-49, operative part 1)
Border controls, asylum and immigration – Asylum policy – Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32 – Procedure for examining an application for international protection – Conditions for the extension of the six-month examination period by the determining authority – Practical difficulty of concluding the procedure for the examination of such applications within the six-month time limit – Source – Large number of applications lodged simultaneously – Whether permissible – Account taken of other circumstances, such as a significant backlog of applications or insufficient personnel at the determining authority – Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32, Arts 4(1) and 31(3), third subpara., point (b))

(see paragraphs 51-56, operative part 2)

Résumé

On a request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands), the Court of Justice specifies the conditions under which the authority responsible for an application for international protection may make use of the option, provided in point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32, ( 1 ) to extend the six-month period laid down for the examination of such an application. That extension is permitted when a large number of third-country nationals simultaneously apply for international protection, making it very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within that six-month time limit.

On 10 April 2022, X, a Turkish national, lodged an application for international protection in the Netherlands. On 21 September 2022, the competent Netherlands authority adopted a decree ( 2 ) extending by nine months the statutory six-month time limit laid down for the examination of applications for the grant of temporary asylum residence permits. On 13 October 2022, X served a notice of default on that authority for failure to take a decision within the six-month time limit. With no response from that authority in the two weeks following that notice of default, X brought an action before the rechtbank Den Haag (District Court, The Hague, Netherlands).

In January 2023, the District Court of the Hague declared X’s action well founded and held that the competent authority had unlawfully extended the time limit for the examination of applications for the grant of temporary asylum residence permits. Furthermore, it ordered that authority to conduct an initial hearing with the applicant within eight weeks of the date of the judgment and to take a decision on X’s application within eight weeks of that hearing, failing which a penalty payment would be imposed.

Taking the view that point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Procedures Directive allows the time limit for examining applications for international protection to be extended not only in the event of a sudden increase in the number of applications, where they are lodged simultaneously, but also in the event of a gradual increase, in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of those applications, the competent Netherlands authority brought an appeal against that judgment before the Council of State.

The Council of State harbours doubts as to whether the six-month extension of the decision period is lawful and has decided to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling. It is uncertain, first, as to whether the Procedures Directive allows the decision-making period to be extended where the number of asylum applications increases only gradually. Second, it asks whether the difficulty in practice to conclude the procedure for the examination of applications for international protection within the six-month time limit referred to in that directive can result from circumstances other than a large number of applications lodged simultaneously.

Findings of the Court

In the first place, the Court states that the six-month time limit laid down for the examination of applications for international protection, referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Procedures Directive, may be extended by nine months by the determining authority in the event of a significant increase in the number of those applications, within a short period, compared to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned, which excludes a situation characterised by a gradual increase in the number of those applications over an extended period.

That provision allows Member States to extend the six-month time limit for the examination of applications for international protection where three cumulative conditions are satisfied, namely (i) the applications for international protection must be lodged ‘simultaneously’, (ii) those applications must be lodged by ‘a large number’ of third-country nationals or stateless persons, and (iii) it must then be ‘very difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit’.

Accordingly, first of all, in the absence of a definition of the meaning and scope of the term ‘simultaneously’ in the Procedures Directive, that term must be interpreted as synonymous with the expression ‘concomitantly’, which implies, in principle, that a large number of applications are lodged at the same time. Since applications for international protection are in practice rarely lodged at exactly the same time, in order not to deprive point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of any useful effect, the word ‘simultaneously’ must be understood as meaning ‘within a short period’. In contrast, that provision is not intended to cover a gradual increase in the number of such applications over a prolonged period.

Next, the existence of applications lodged by ‘a large number’ of third-country nationals or stateless persons must be assessed in the light of the usual and foreseeable flow of those applications in the Member State concerned, since the directive does not contain any criteria allowing such a number to be quantified. In order for there to be ‘a large number’ of applications for international protection lodged ‘simultaneously’, the determining authority must determine, on the basis of a comparative analysis of numerical data, whether there has been a significant increase in the number of those applications within a short period in relation to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned.

Finally, the condition relating to the existence of practical difficulties in concluding, within six months, the processing of a large number of such applications lodged at the same time, must be assessed in the light of the obligations incumbent on the Member States under Article 4(1) of the Procedures Directive. ( 3 ) In that regard, in the event of a gradual increase in the number of applications for international protection over a prolonged period, the Member State concerned is required to take measures, in accordance with that provision, to adapt its capacity to process those applications. Accordingly, the duration of the period to be taken into consideration cannot exceed the time needed by a Member State to increase the means made available to the determining authority and to have sufficient capacity to resume processing of those applications. The time needed must therefore be assessed in the light of the time required to recruit and train competent personnel to process applications for international protection received in an adequate and complete manner.

In the second place, the Court states that the difficulty, in practice, of concluding the procedure for the examination of applications for international protection within the six-month time limit, pursuant to point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3), cannot result from circumstances other than a large number of applications lodged simultaneously, such as a significant backlog of applications or insufficient personnel at the determining authority.

If circumstances other than the large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously were accepted to justify an extension of the time limit for examination, that would undermine the Member State’s obligations under Article 4(1) of the Procedures Directive.

However, in the case of a significant increase in the number of those applications within a short period in relation to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned, it cannot be expected that that Member State will be able immediately to meet the additional personnel needs within the prescribed six-month time limit. In such a situation, Member States must have the necessary time to ensure that the human resources of the determining authority are strengthened. In that regard, point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the Procedures Directive provides for the possibility of extending the time limit for the examination of applications by a period not exceeding a further nine months.

Consequently, the number of applications for international protection awaiting processing at the time when the significant increase in the number of applications lodged simultaneously occurs cannot in itself constitute a circumstance justifying an extension under that provision. When the number of applications remains continuously high over an extended period, the Member State in question is obliged to provide the determining authority with appropriate means to ensure that it has sufficient processing capacity, in accordance with Article 4(1) of that directive.

( i ) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

( 1 ) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180 p. 60) (‘the Procedures Directive’).

( 2 ) Besluit houdende wijzthe van de Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000 (Decree amending the circular on foreign nationals of 2000).

( 3 ) That provision provides, first, that Member States are to designate for all procedures an authority which will be responsible for an appropriate examination of applications in accordance with that directive and, second, that they are to ensure that such authority is provided with appropriate means, including sufficient competent personnel, to carry out its tasks in accordance with that directive.