Netherlands - AJDCoS, 22 April 2009 , 200809034/1/V2

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
Court Name:
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

The case concerns whether or not the accelerated procedure used in the applicant’s claim was consistent with Art 23.4 of the Asylum Procedures Directive which allows for an accelerated procedure. It was found that the accelerated procedure was consistent with the Asylum Procedures Directive because the applicant was found not to be credible.


The applicant claimed to have worked for the United Democratic Party. His application for refugee status was rejected by the Secretary of State for Justice because the applicant was not found credible because he had little knowledge about the party he worked for and he made contradictory statements about his involvement with the party. His claim was processed through an accelerated procedure.

The applicant appealed to the District Court of Haarlem (9 December 2008, AWB 08/41339, 08/41341 and 08/41344) and this was also dismissed because it was deemed by the court that the Secretary of State applied Art 23.4, in relation to accelerated procedures, correctly in his case. The applicant claimed in a further appeal to the Council of State that an accelerated procedure of an asylum application according to the Directive was only allowed in one of the situations outlined in Art 23.4  and that the Dutch legislation, that also left room for an accelerated procedure on other grounds, was inconsistent with this article. 

Decision & Reasoning: 

It was not disputed that the application had been processed in an accelerated procedure. According to the policy of the Secretary of State as stated in  paragraph C10/1.1 Vc, asylum applications can be processed in this manner if, without time-consuming examination, the asylum claim can be rejected according to articles 30 or 31 of the Aliens Act 2000 or 4:6 of the General Administrative Act.

The Counsel of State concluded that Art 23.3(g) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states that an accelerated procedure is allowed where the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, improbable or insufficient representations which make his claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his having been the object of persecution referred to in the Qualification Directive.

The Counsel of State found that the District Court had upheld the decision of the Secretary of State on the issue of credibility. The Counsel of State concluded that the applicant’s arguments for bringing the further appeal therefore could not successfully challenge the initial asylum decision. The Counsel of State therefore concluded that the account of the applicant was not credible and therefore the accelerated procedure was in accordance with the Qualification Directive.

The Council of State also stated that the  District Court had:

‘’rightly held that in this case a situation exists as described in Article 23.4(4(g) of the Asylum Procedures Directive. The claim that the court has not recognised that the Dutch legislation is contrary to this article because an accelerated procedure of asylum applications is also possible in situations not described in this article needs no discussion, now that in this case at least one situation as described in the Directive is applicable.’’


The further appeal of the applicant was dismissed.