The Dutch government could be forced to pay more than €100 million in compensation to asylum seekers after a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), sharply reducing member states’ freedom to manage migration pressures on their own terms.
The ruling, issued on May 8th in the Zimir case, drastically narrows the conditions on which governments can delay asylum decisions, leaving the Dutch government legally exposed—and politically cornered. While public services are overwhelmed, Brussels punishes an EU member state for not giving absolute priority to people who are not even European citizens.
The decision directly affects around 18,000 asylum seekers who have been waiting between six and fifteen months for a resolution, far exceeding the six-month deadline established by EU law. If each of them claims the maximum compensation—€7,500—the total could easily surpass €100 million. This comes on top of nearly €37 million already paid out in similar penalties last year. Brussels shows little concern for the strain on Dutch public services—its main concern, it seems, is protecting the procedural rights of foreigners.
The ECJ made it clear that only a sudden and large-scale crisis—such as an armed conflict or an unforeseen influx—justifies extending the time limits. Gradual increases in asylum claims or a lack of staff are not acceptable reasons.
This calls into question years of Dutch asylum policy. During the tenure of former Minister Eric van der Burg, the government extended the processing time to 15 months, citing system overload and staffing shortages at the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND). That approach has now been ruled illegitimate by Brussels.
Current Asylum Minister Marjolein Faber (PVV) has admitted the scale of the challenge. “It will take years,” she told Parliament, to return to compliance with legal timelines. Meanwhile, the IND still takes an average of 72 weeks—nearly three times the legal limit—just to complete the second interview, a prerequisite for any official decision.
Criticism has mounted. NSC MP Diederik Boomsma warned, “The government must act now to avoid this kind of economic bleeding,” describing the situation as “legally and politically unsustainable.” Asylum lawyer Michael Yap was even more direct: “The state has only itself to blame. The IND can handle a case in days—the problem is they don’t start working on it until months later.”
All of this comes at a politically sensitive time. The new center-right government is trying to reduce the burden that the asylum system places on state resources. The numbers speak for themselves: thousands of people remain in temporary shelters or hotels, with nightly costs exceeding €300. Family reunification—especially among Syrians—continues to drive new arrivals.
In response, Minister Faber has announced a set of reforms, including limiting family reunification rights and tightening access to asylum. But now she must deal with a European legal machine seemingly determined to impose its rules, even at the expense of national sovereignty. With this ruling, the ECJ has drawn a red line: the rights of asylum seekers come first—even if that means financially punishing a country that simply cannot take in more.