Registered under C-158/23:

The case concerned an Eritrean applicant who has been granted an asylum permit in the Netherlands where beneficiaries of international protection are obliged to pass the civic integration examination within a certain period. According to the Civic Integration Act 2013, third country nationals are responsible for their own integration, and they must cover the costs of their integration courses and exams. For such purpose, they can take out a loan from the government for up to € 10,000. If refugee status holders pass the integration exam on time or are exempted or released from their integration obligation in time, they do not have to repay the loan. But they have to repay the entire loan in case they have not fulfilled the civic integration obligation on time.

In this case, the applicant did not pass the exam on time and was not exempted or released from the civic integration obligation within the term. Consequently, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment has fined him € 500, and the applicant must also fully repay the € 10,000 loan he had taken out with the government.

The new Civic Integration Act 2021 entered into force on 1st January 2022 and based on the new system, beneficiaries of asylum status no longer have the obligation to pay for the integration courses and exams themselves and therefore do not have to apply for a loan from the government. However, beneficiaries of refugee status may be fined at various times based on the civic integration obligation which will continue its existence.

The Administrative Jurisdiction of the Council of State addressed question before the CJEU for preliminary ruling on whether the minister can impose a civic integration obligation for beneficiaries of refugee status with a fine in case of non-compliance. According to the Council of State the Dutch legislation follows the QD on the right of the asylum beneficiaries to access integration facilities and the CJEU is also asked whether the obligation imposed on refugees to pay for their integration costs is in line with the recast QD.

The Council of State addressed the following questions: 

1. Should Article 34 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted in such a way that it precludes a national regulation as regulated in Article 7b of the Civic Integration Act, on the basis of which asylum status holders are obliged, under penalty of a fine, to take a civic integration examination?

2. Should Article 34 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted as precluding a national regulation based on the principle that beneficiaries of asylum status themselves bear the full costs of the integration programmes?

3. Is it important in answering the second question that asylum status holders can receive a government loan to pay the costs of the integration programs and that this loan is waived if they have passed their integration examination on time or have been exempted or released from the integration obligation in time?

4. If Article 34 of the Qualification Directive allows asylum status holders to be obliged to pass a civic integration examination under penalty of a fine and allows asylum status holders to bear the full costs of the integration programmes, does the amount of the loan to be repaid already would not together with the fine undermine the achievement of the purpose and useful effect of Article 34 of the Qualification Directive?