On this page
Important legal update: As of today, 16 October 2026, the Dutch government has abolished judicial penalty payments (rechterlijke dwangsommen) against the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) for failing to make immigration decisions on time.
This change affects not only asylum applications but also regular immigration applications, including family reunification, work permits, self-employment residence permits, permanent residence and applications for verification against EU law (EU-toetsing).
However, applicants still have the right to take the IND to court when it fails to make a decision within the applicable legal timeframe. The court can still order the IND to make a decision, and applicants may still recover court fees and professional legal assistance costs.
Below, Pathway Partners explains what has changed, which legal remedies remain available, and why applicants should not simply accept indefinite delays.
1. What has changed under the new legislation?
In our previous article, IND Is Not Making a Decision on Time. What Can I Do?, we explained how applicants could formally notify the IND of a delay and subsequently initiate court proceedings to obtain a decision.
That article also explained that a court could impose a financial penalty on the IND if it failed to comply with a judicial deadline. For example, the IND could be ordered to pay €100 for each additional day of delay, up to a maximum of €15,000.
This part of our previous article is no longer valid under the new legislation.
On 13 October 2026, the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) approved the relevant legislative amendment. The new law was published in Staatsblad and Royal Decree, confirming its entry into force on 16 October 2026, reflected in the amendment of article 71b of the Vreemdelingenwet (Dutch Aliens Act).
Under the new law, the court is generally no longer permitted to attach a financial penalty to late decisions of the IND.
Not just asylum applications: the change also affects regular immigration
Many media reports have focused on the abolition of judicial penalties in asylum cases. Although asylum-related delays have attracted significant attention, describing this as an asylum-only measure does not tell the full story.
The legislation expressly concerns late decisions on applications and objections (aanvragen en bezwaren) under the Vreemdelingenwet. This includes, among other categories:
- Family reunification and partner residence applications;
- Residence permits for highly skilled migrants and other employees;
- Residence permits for self-employed persons, including DAFT applications;
- Permanent residence and EU long-term residence applications;
- Applications for verification against EU law (EU-toetsing);
- Objection procedures (bezwaar) relating to immigration decisions.
The change concerns applications and objections under the Dutch Aliens Act. It should not automatically be interpreted as covering every administrative procedure handled by the IND under other legislation, such as naturalisation under the Dutch Nationality Act.
Importantly, the abolition of judicial penalties does not remove the IND's legal obligation to make decisions within the applicable statutory deadlines.
There is also a transitional arrangement. Where the statutory decision deadline had already expired and an appeal for failure to decide was filed before 16 October 2026, the previous rules concerning judicial penalties may continue to apply.
2. What can applicants do when the IND fails to decide on time?
The essential legal procedure remains unchanged.
Step 1: Check the statutory decision deadline
After receiving an immigration application, the IND must make a decision within the timeframe prescribed by Dutch law or, where applicable, EU law.
The applicable period depends on the type of application. For example:
- Many regular residence permit applications are subject to a decision period of 90 days.
- Applications for verification against EU law (EU-toetsing) generally have a six-month decision deadline.
- Other procedures, including certain family reunification applications and objections, may have different deadlines.
In some circumstances, the IND may lawfully extend or suspend the decision period, for example when additional documents are requested. Not every delay therefore constitutes a breach of the statutory deadline.
Applicants should carefully verify the deadline applicable to their individual case rather than relying exclusively on an estimated processing time.
Step 2: Submit an ingebrekestelling (formal notice of default)
If the applicable decision deadline has expired without a decision, the applicant can formally notify the IND that it has failed to fulfil its legal obligation.This notification is known as an ingebrekestelling. The ingebrekestelling informs the IND that its decision period has expired and formally requests a decision.
Following receipt of a valid ingebrekestelling, the IND is generally given a further two weeks to decide.
Although an ingebrekestelling no longer generates an automatic administrative penalty (bestuurlijke dwangsom) in immigration cases, it remains an essential procedural step.
Applicants should use an accepted submission method and retain proof of submission and receipt.
Step 3: File a beroep (court appeal)
If the IND still fails to decide within two weeks after the ingebrekestelling, the applicant can generally submit an appeal to the administrative court. This procedure is called beroep niet tijdig beslissen, meaning an appeal against the failure to make a decision on time.
The court examines whether the IND has exceeded the applicable legal deadline and whether the procedural requirements for the appeal have been met.
If the appeal is well-founded, the court must order the IND to make a decision within a reasonable period.
The court does not normally determine whether the applicant should receive the requested residence permit. Its role in this procedure is to address the IND's failure to make a timely decision.
Despite the abolition of financial penalties, this judicial procedure remains available and legally significant.
3. Why is going to court still worthwhile?
Some applicants may wonder whether filing a court appeal remains useful now that judicial penalties have been abolished.
At Pathway Partners, we believe that legal action can still provide important advantages compared with simply waiting indefinitely.
Court judgments create formal legal obligations
An unanswered email or reminder does not carry the same legal weight as a judicial ruling.
When the court declares an appeal well-founded, it formally establishes that the IND has failed to meet its decision-making obligation and orders the IND to decide within a specified period. The IND remains legally obliged to comply with that judgment.
Although the new law generally prevents the court from attaching a judicial financial penalty, the judgment itself retains legal effect. It is not merely a recommendation.
Legal proceedings can create additional pressure to reach a decision
Filing an appeal formally brings the delay before an independent court and requires the IND to account for its failure to decide. In practice, initiating proceedings may prompt the IND to reassess the status or priority of a pending application.
In some cases, the IND may issue a decision after an appeal has been filed, even before the court delivers its judgment.
This outcome is not guaranteed, but it demonstrates why pursuing a formal legal remedy may be more effective than repeatedly sending informal reminders.
Applicants can still recover court fees (griffierecht)
The abolition of judicial penalties does not abolish the right to reimbursement of court fees.
Under Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Awb), when an administrative court declares an appeal well-founded, it must generally order the administrative authority to reimburse the court fee paid by the applicant.
Therefore, a successful appeal can still result in an order requiring the IND to reimburse the court fees.
The IND may still have to reimburse professional legal costs (proceskostenvergoeding)
Applicants who engage professional legal representatives, such as attorneys or qualified jurists, may also qualify for reimbursement of litigation costs.
Under Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Awb), the court may order the IND to contribute towards the costs of professional legal assistance.
This reimbursement is calculated according to the Besluit proceskosten bestuursrecht (Bpb), which establishes standard amounts based on the procedural work performed and the applicable weighting. It is important to understand that the awarded amount does not necessarily cover the full invoice charged by the legal representative.
Nevertheless, these costs remain recoverable in qualifying proceedings even after 16 October 2026.
Costs may still be reimbursed if the IND decides during the appeal
Suppose an applicant files a court appeal because the IND has failed to decide, and the IND subsequently makes its decision before the court delivers judgment.
In this situation, the principal purpose of the appeal may have been achieved.
However, that does not necessarily mean the applicant must bear all the litigation costs. Reimbursement of court fees and professional legal costs may still be available where an appeal is withdrawn because the administrative authority has complied with the relief sought.
A request for professional legal costs Awb must be made at the same time as the withdrawal.
For this reason, applicants should obtain legal advice before withdrawing pending proceedings.
Court proceedings establish a formal record of the delay
A judicial finding that the IND failed to make a decision within the legal timeframe creates an important formal record. This may assist with subsequent legal steps if the IND continues to delay its decision or if the applicant considers pursuing further remedies.
In exceptional circumstances, applicants who suffer demonstrable financial damage because of unlawful delays may also explore a separate claim for damages. Such compensation is not automatic and requires an appropriate legal basis, evidence of damage and a causal connection.
4. Potential conflict with the EU law
An additional legal question arises where the residence application is protected by European Union law. For certain types of immigration applications, European directives impose specific obligations on Member States regarding decision-making deadlines and judicial protection.
This is particularly relevant to applications for verification against EU law (EU-toetsing).
EU-toetsing: the six-month deadline under Directive 2004/38/EC
Under Article 10(1) of the Directive, qualifying non-EU family members of mobile EU citizens are entitled to have their applications for residence cards processed within six months. The Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed the binding nature of this deadline in its judgment of Diallo v État belge in 2018.
The Court held that the competent authority must adopt and notify its decision within the six-month period. This applies whether the decision is positive or negative.
A delayed decision does not automatically mean the applicant must receive a residence card. Nevertheless, the Member State remains bound by its obligation to decide within the prescribed period. The precise application of Directive 2004/38 depends on the family relationship and the EU citizen's exercise of free-movement rights. Different considerations may apply to unmarried durable partners and to family members of Dutch citizens who have not exercised EU free-movement rights.
Article 47 of the EU Charter: the right to effective judicial protection
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal where rights protected by EU law have been infringed.
This raises an important legal question:
If a court can order the IND to make a decision, but has no effective means of ensuring that the IND complies with that order, does the applicant still enjoy effective judicial protection under EU law?
This question is not merely theoretical.
In 2022, the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State) delivered an important judgment. In that case, concerning an earlier statutory prohibition on judicial penalties in asylum proceedings, the Council of State held that excluding judicial penalties without providing another effective enforcement mechanism was incompatible with Article 47 of the EU Charter.
The Court recognised that EU law does not necessarily require the specific mechanism of a financial penalty. However, theoretically speaking, an effective judicial protection should require a genuine means of securing compliance with a court judgment.
5. What should you do if your IND application is delayed?
The removal of judicial penalties does not mean that applicants have lost their right to challenge an overdue immigration decision. The IND remains legally obliged to comply with applicable decision deadlines, and the courts remain empowered to establish that a delay is unlawful and order the IND to make a decision.
Depending on the circumstances, formal legal action can still:
- Result in a binding court order requiring the IND to decide;
- Secure reimbursement of court fees and eligible professional legal costs;
- Create additional legal and procedural pressure;
- Establish a formal judicial record of unlawful delay;
- Protect rights arising under Dutch and, where applicable, the EU law.
Doing nothing and simply waiting may not always be the most appropriate solution, especially where a delayed decision affects family reunification, employment, business operations or long-term residence plans.
6. Pathway Partners can help you challenge IND delays
If you have submitted an immigration application or objection and the IND has failed to make a decision within the applicable legal timeframe, Pathway Partners can assist you in assessing and pursuing the legal remedies available.
Our legal team can help you verify the statutory decision deadline, prepare and submit a notice of default (ingebrekestelling), initiate an appeal (beroep), and request reimbursement of court fees and professional legal costs before the court where appropriate.
In cases involving rights protected by EU law, including qualifying EU-toetsing applications, we can also assess whether additional European legal arguments may be relevant.
Has the IND delayed your residence permit application or objection?
Contact Pathway Partners to discuss your circumstances and explore the available legal options to obtain a decision as soon as legally possible.