The Dutch Senate approved legislation Tuesday, October 13, 2026, ending court-ordered penalty payments to asylum seekers when the Immigration and Naturalisation Service misses its decision deadline. The measure has not yet taken effect.
Asylum Minister Bart van den Brink said he intends to bring the change into force within one week, after publication and formal commencement. The vote followed approval of an amendment by the lower house during the summer.
The agency had paid €112 million in penalties through September 2026. The government says those payments have not made decisions come faster.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
Van den Brink described the backlog as having “completely spiralled out of control” and said the payments had “a destructive effect.” He called the legislation “a huge improvement” to the asylum system.
The six-month deadline remains, but the penalty route is ending
The legislation removes the specific route for asking a court to impose a financial penalty because a case has passed its decision deadline. It does not erase the agency’s duty to decide applications, or guarantee shorter waits.
The ordinary deadline for an initial asylum decision remains six months. Applicants whose cases exceed the applicable period will generally no longer be able to seek this particular court-ordered payment.
The wait can stretch much longer. People who applied before the European Migration Pact took effect on June 12, 2026, may wait as long as three years for a decision.
The repeal concerns financial penalties in covered asylum cases. Other legal routes to challenge unreasonable administrative delay may remain available, but the change does not itself spell out how every pending or future case will be treated.
The IND says litigation consumed time without speeding decisions
Rhoda Maas, director of the IND, said the penalty process added demands without accelerating decisions. The agency has pointed to a heavy caseload and staff shortages as sources of delay.
“Too many people have to wait too long for a decision and live in prolonged uncertainty. They are entitled to timely processing by the IND. Yet, however odd it may sound, penalty payment proceedings do not help achieve that.”
Maas also said the penalties had created “increased pressure, high costs, and an unnecessary workload, without achieving the goal of faster decision-making.”
More than 200 court requests per working day had reportedly been filed in recent years by asylum seekers seeking compensation. Under the previous process, an IND employee often had to attend a hearing to explain why an application remained undecided.
A separate account of payments during the first seven months of 2026 put the total at almost €100 million. That figure covered a shorter period than the €112 million reported through September.
The former system allowed daily penalties after notice and a two-week wait
The broader Dutch administrative penalty system dates to 2009. An applicant could notify an agency that it had missed a deadline; if no decision followed within two weeks, daily payments could begin.
Those payments could reach €1,442. An applicant could then ask a court to intervene, and judges could impose an additional penalty. Some individual claimants reportedly received more than €100,000.
The original rationale was to protect people from administrative inaction. A 2009 explanatory note said “the government aims to be a reliable partner to citizens” and that people should be able to expect a response within a prescribed period.
That safeguard is now being removed for the covered asylum cases. The government and agency argue the litigation has diverted staff from processing files; the original rationale treated financial consequences as a way to make government meet deadlines.
The measure sits inside a wider return-policy package
The legislation also creates rules allowing authorities to detain people who deliberately refuse or evade departure after their asylum applications have been rejected. The change on penalties formed part of a broader package on asylum and return.
A separate proposal to make unlawful residence a crime was not included. A narrower proposal would set a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for rejected asylum seekers who actively obstruct their return.
Boris Dittrich, a D66 senator, had criticized the wider direction of return and residence policy. In an earlier debate, he warned that criminalizing unlawful residence could let a future right-wing cabinet “hunt down all illegal immigrants.”
The earlier bill failed before the minister revived selected measures
The penalty measure began in a larger asylum bill put forward by former PVV Asylum Minister Marjolein Faber. The Senate rejected that bill after the PVV parliamentary group withdrew its support. Van den Brink later advanced selected provisions separately.
The effort to scrap penalties also reaches beyond asylum. The IND, the Benefits Agency within the Finance Ministry, and UWV, under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, discussed whether similar changes could apply across administrative law.
Hans Vijlbrief, Minister of Social Affairs, has backed eliminating comparable penalty payments when UWV misses decision deadlines. An IND spokesperson said the agency was in contact with other implementing bodies to “exchange experiences.”
The vote is therefore a change to one remedy, not a new asylum decision deadline. Publication and a formal commencement decision still stand between Senate approval and the minister’s stated timetable.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
