The District Court of The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam, delivered three judgments on 6 July 2026 overturning the rejection of asylum applications by Turkish nationals linked to the Gülen movement. The court ordered the minister to grant them refugee status. The judgments were published on 7 July and reported internationally in September.

The court applied the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgments of 4 June 2026 in Quotal (C-198/25) and Ebilum (C-440/25 PPA). Those rulings require national courts to conduct a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and of the need for international protection, including a binding assessment of credibility, rather than a restrained review of the minister’s decision. The court stated that it would therefore make its own assessment and would no longer begin by identifying defects in the reasoning of the contested decisions.

The minister had accepted that the applicants were Gülen supporters, and in two of the three cases accepted their accounts in full, but rejected the applications on the ground that they had not shown a current risk of persecution on return.

The first case concerns a former military cadet who was detained and prosecuted after the 2016 coup attempt and later acquitted. He produced a Court of Cassation document showing that the prosecution had asked for his file to be re-examined. The court found his criminal case was not closed, and noted that former cadets receive particular attention from the Turkish authorities.

The second case concerns a family of four. The father was acquitted in criminal proceedings but his dismissal by emergency decree was upheld on appeal in 2024, with the administrative court classifying him as a “level 5” member, a tier that country information describes as responsible for making and implementing movement policy. The court observed that an acquittal means only that there was insufficient criminal evidence, “nothing more, but also nothing less”, and held that the combination of criminal and administrative measures imposed because of a political opinion itself constitutes acts of persecution. It also took into account that he had been summoned as a witness in a colleague’s case, that the family’s activities in the Netherlands are monitored, and that the children face risk as family members.

The third case concerns a man sentenced to seven years and six months, who says he was tortured in detention, served four years, and left Turkey during his conditional release period in breach of its conditions. The court noted police visits to his family, a document showing his file had been requested again by the 21st criminal chamber, and his account that others on the same list had been arrested.

In the family’s case, the court cited Johan Vande Lanotte, emeritus professor at Ghent University, twice: for the finding that people previously suspected of involvement with the movement can come back under negative official attention, and for the finding that those who help detained Gülenists are now prosecuted for restructuring the movement. In both footnotes the court recorded that it had taken the reference from the Council of State’s judgment of 25 March 2026 (report link: https://lnkd.in/p/eVTHmSVX).

The court held the rejections contrary to Articles 4, 18 and 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the conditions for refugee status under the Qualification Regulation, which entered into application on 12 June 2026.

A national court reached the opposite conclusion to the minister on facts the minister had largely accepted, relying in part on Johan Vande Lanotte’s January 2025 report.