In a landmark case involving three homosexual men seeking asylum in the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities argued that they could safely return to their country of origin if they concealed their sexual orientation, even though homosexuality was criminalised there.

Together with partners, we challenged this before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court ruled clearly: no one should be required to hide who they are in order to avoid persecution.

Until 2023, Dutch authorities required that a refugee’s political beliefs form a fundamental part of their identity. This led to them often denying protection, despite an unsafe situation for the applicant.

We supported a case involving a woman from Sudan who had become politically active in the Netherlands. She participated in protests, encouraged other women to speak out, and expressed criticism of the Sudanese regime online.

Working closely with her lawyer, our Committee argued the case before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court ruled that the Netherlands applied overly strict standards.

This judgment brought Dutch practice back in line with the Refugee Convention and strengthened protection for political refugees.

For years, asylum seekers in the Moria camp in Greece lived in extreme overcrowding without adequate shelter, healthcare, or sanitation. After a devastating fire in 2020, many were left entirely without protection.

Together with partner organisations, we submitted a third‑party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights. We highlighted the absence of basic living conditions and the long asylum procedures that kept families separated for months or years.

In 2023, the Court ruled that the conditions in Moria amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, an important acknowledgment of the harm caused by systemic neglect.

Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, was long considered to only provide technical and logistical support to EU Member States, which made it difficult to hold it accountability for its participation in unlawful operations.

We supported a case involving a Syrian family who were unlawfully returned from Greece to Türkiye on a flight operated by Frontex. The case reached the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In a landmark judgment, the Court confirmed for the first time that Frontex can be held accountable for failing to meet its legal obligations. This ruling is particularly significant in light of ongoing pushbacks at Europe’s borders and the expanding role of Frontex under the new EU Migration Pact.

In 2024, the EU adopted new asylum legislation. These rules must be applied in all Member States by the summer of 2026. This will significantly reshape asylum systems in the Netherlands and across Europe. We closely monitor the developments and take action when necessary.

Certain minority groups face heightened risks in their countries of origin since belonging to a certain group, such as religious or ethnic minorities or political opponents. How is it assessed whether specific minority groups would be exposed to persecution or inhuman treatment upon return? Are such risk assessments consistent with obligations arising under European law?

In 2024, a new operational instruction entered into force concerning how the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) assesses the credibility of asylum seekers’ accounts. It has been referred to the European Court whether this new assessment complies with European law. A related issue concerns the role of the judiciary in credibility assessments: must the judge be able to form an independent assessment? This question is likewise pending before the European Court.

Where refugees have been tortured in their country of origin, their bodies and minds often bear lasting scars. Under European law, authorities must take medical evidence into account, such as documentation from physicians confirming that a refugee has been subjected to torture. In Dutch administrative practice and case-law, insufficient weight is being attached to such evidence, in contravention of European law. 

In early 2025, Poland suspended access to asylum for certain groups arriving from Belarus. This contradicts the fundamental right to seek asylum under EU law. Together with our European partners, we are working to ensure this right is upheld in practice.