Senate abolishes court-imposed penalty payments in asylum cases
The IND will no longer have to pay when an application is not dealt with on time.
Follow-up to: Senate discusses abolishing asylum penalty payments Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 11:28
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Senate approved on Tuesday the abolition of court-imposed penalty payments for late decisions on residence applications. The IND says this will free up money and capacity, while opponents fear that an important incentive for timely decision-making will disappear.
The vote is the latest development in a debate that has been running for years. The legislative amendment ends the obligation for the Immigration and Naturalisation Service to pay a sum of money when a statutory decision deadline is exceeded. The IND confirmed on Tuesday that the Senate had approved the amendment.
The service says the penalty payments have not achieved their original purpose. They were intended to encourage public bodies to make decisions more quickly, but according to the IND the proceedings mainly create extra work for staff and legal costs. The service paid out approximately €79 million in penalty payments in 2025 and says it has already paid more than €112 million in 2026.
The abolition does not mean that asylum seekers can no longer turn to the courts when a decision is delayed. The bill also states that appeals against failure to decide on time in immigration cases will remain possible. In addition, the government must report periodically on the extent to which cases are dealt with within the statutory deadline.
The emphasis is therefore shifting from financial compensation to oversight and accountability. The question is whether reports and court proceedings will exert sufficient pressure if the IND builds up backlogs again. The legislative amendment does not remove the organisational causes of those backlogs, such as staff shortages, a heavy workload and changing rules.
For the IND, the vote is an important step because the service wants to use the released funds and staff time to process applications. For applicants, the main change is that the right to a payment when a deadline is exceeded will disappear. A payment, incidentally, was no guarantee that a decision would come more quickly.
The measure will not enter fully into force immediately as a result of the vote. Further formal processing and publication of the law are still required. Its practical effect will also depend on how the government measures progress and how judges deal with appeals against late decisions.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Senate has approved the abolition of court-imposed penalty payments for late decisions in immigration cases.
- The legislative amendment also provides for reporting on timely decision-making and appeals against failure to decide on time.
- The IND says that the penalty payments cost a great deal of money and capacity.
Left
Arguments The financial consequence for the government is one of the few means by which applicants can enforce timely decision-making. Without that incentive, the state may allow backlogs to continue.
Values Legal protection, human dignity and equal treatment in relation to a powerful government.
Consequences The abolition may lead to longer uncertainty for applicants and put more pressure on the courts to compel the government to act.
Centre
Arguments The penalty-payment scheme has not helped enough and uses scarce administrative capacity. Abolition is defensible if it is matched by transparent reporting, judicial scrutiny and investment in the IND.
Values Practical deliverability, legal certainty and institutional oversight.
Consequences The measure may save money, but the result will depend on the quality of the reports and on whether implementation actually improves.
Right
Arguments The government should make decisions on the basis of statutory procedures, not financial incentives which, in this view, encourage abuse and excessive litigation. Resources released can be put to better use on faster procedures and enforcement.
Values Administrative effectiveness, control of public spending and a strict migration policy.
Consequences The state will have more room to organise implementation, but it must itself prove that decisions are actually being made more quickly.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The key facts were checked directly with the IND and the parliamentary legislative dossier. The text clearly distinguishes between the law as passed and its entry into force, which is still to come.
- confirmed The Senate voted on 13 October to abolish court-imposed penalty payments. — Confirmed by the IND's current publication. source
- confirmed The IND paid approximately €79 million in penalty payments in 2025 and more than €112 million in 2026 so far. — These amounts appear in the IND publication of 13 October 2026. source
- confirmed Appeals against failure to decide on time and periodic reporting will remain part of the legislative amendment. — Description by the Senate of the contents of Bill 35,749. source
Editor's note
The vote and the removal of the court-imposed penalty payment are certain. The precise date on which the law will enter into force and the consequences for the decision deadlines themselves were not yet known.Sources
The story so far
- Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 11:28 Senate discusses abolishing asylum penalty payments
- Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 22:00 Senate considers bill scrapping penalty payments in asylum cases
- Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 22:58 Senate abolishes court-imposed penalty payments in asylum cases (this article)