Awb 4:15 · the clock pauses while the authority waits for the applicant
Article 4:15 of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht suspends the statutory decision term in three specified situations. The most common: the authority needs more information from the applicant and sends a request for more information (verzoek tot aanvulling) under Awb 4:5. While the applicant has not responded, the Awb 4:13 clock does not run. The moment the response arrives, the clock resumes. The total elapsed period is what matters, not the calendar.
Awb 4:15 · the clock pauses while the authority waits for the applicant
The article lists three suspension triggers. 4:15(1)(a): the term is suspended while the authority is waiting for information requested under Awb 4:5 (incomplete application). 4:15(1)(b): while a third party who must contribute to the decision (e.g. an embassy, a foreign authority, a Dutch advisory body) has not delivered its contribution. 4:15(2): force-majeure events also suspend the clock for the duration of the disruption.
Suspension is not extension. The authority is not gaining time on its own clock; it is freezing the clock while waiting for something it has formally asked for.
Most suspensions arise from a request for more information under Awb 4:5. The authority writes to the applicant naming exactly what is missing, sets a deadline (usually two weeks) for the response, and notes that the term is suspended in the meantime. The applicant supplies the missing item; the date of receipt is the date the clock resumes.
| Authority action | Suspension? |
|---|---|
| Formal Awb 4:5 request for more information, in writing | Yes — Awb 4:15(1)(a) |
| Internal triage by IND staff | No |
| Status-update letter saying "in behandeling" | No |
| Phone call asking informally for a document | No (must be in writing) |
| Awaiting embassy biometrics intake | Yes if formal — Awb 4:15(1)(b) |
| Awaiting BIBOB-advice or other Dutch advisory-body input | Yes if mandatory — Awb 4:15(1)(b) |
| Authority's own backlog or staffing shortage | No |
| Closed for the summer or end-of-year | No |
| Industrial action or natural disaster | Yes — Awb 4:15(2) force majeure |
The arithmetic is simple. Take the calendar period from receipt to today. Subtract the suspension periods. Compare the remainder to the procedure-specific term. If the remainder exceeds the term, the term has been breached and the Notice of Default route is open.
Example: residence-permit application received 1 January. Request for more information 1 March, response 15 March. Statutory term is 3 months (90 days). Today is 15 May. Calendar period: 134 days. Suspension period: 14 days (1 to 15 March). Effective elapsed: 120 days. Term: 90 days. Breach by 30 days. Notice ready.
Every Notice we draft includes the suspension audit in its timeline paragraph. The Notice does not contest the suspension itself in this letter; it acknowledges any valid suspension and then computes the term against the corrected elapsed period. If the suspension was wrongly applied, the Notice cites Awb 4:15 and explains why the suspension does not apply. This forces the authority's internal team to either pay the daily penalty (dwangsom) or correct the calculation in their next letter.
Suspension audits are the single most common reason a stuck case file actually fails the term test. About one in five intake files turns out to still be inside the term after a correct suspension calculation. That is fine: the file fee is refunded under our refund policy. The other four are genuinely overdue, and the Notice goes out the same day.