An Eritrean national who was granted international protection in the Netherlands was under an obligation to integrate and pass all parts of the integration exam within 3 years, starting on 1 February 2016. The deadline for this obligation was extended several times. However, as the appellant did not pass the exams by 1 February 2020, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (currently State Secretary for Participation and Integration) imposed a fine of EUR 500 and requested the appellant to repay a loan of EUR 10,000 – a loan which was available for all under the integration obligation to facilitate the process, under the condition that they pass the test.

This decision was appealed, and the Amsterdam District Court delivered its judgment on 4 November 2021 (No 21/2070). The court dismissed the appeal and found that the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34, was correctly implemented. The Civic Integration Act 2013 allowed for tailored-made, customised approach for each person under the integration obligation, and the Ministry took the appellant's individual circumstances into account when it extended the deadline for integration several times, as well as when it imposed the fine and the loan repayment obligation.

This decision was further appealed to the Council of State. The appellant argued that the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34, was incorrectly implemented in Dutch law. It creates a positive right to integration, while the Dutch system which includes fines and loan repayment in practice hinders integration, and did not guarantee access to integration programmes. In addition, the appellant argued that the system also did not allow for sufficiently considering the special needs and specific integration challenges of asylum seekers.

In the meantime, the appellant was exempted from the obligation to integrate on 2 December 2021, as the Ministry concluded he had made sufficient efforts to integrate in that time. Still, it was concluded that this did not impact his obligation to pay the fine and repay the loan.

The Council of State referred questions for preliminary ruling to the CJEU on 15 March 2023 and the appeal proceedings were suspended until the latter delivered its judgment. The CJEU answered those questions on 4 February 2025, in Keren.

The Council of State paraphrased the CJEU ruling in its judgment.

It firstly considers the integration obligation, citing paragraphs 53-63, 65-66 and 67-73. The Council of State highlighted that the CJEU concluded that Member States have the discretion to decide on the content and implementation of integration programmes under the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34. However, these programmes must not constitute in practice a disproportionate obstacle for beneficiaries of international protection to effectively access integration, and cannot prevent them from exercising their rights and benefits under the recast Qualification Directive. The CJEU also noted that an integration obligation is in principle compatible with the directive, as it promotes language learning and knowledge on the host society, making it easier to exercise the rights and benefits under the recast Qualification Directive. The CJEU added that Member States must ensure that these programmes and passing an examination ensure that beneficiaries of international protection indisputably acquire knowledge that is useful for their integration. The Council of State observes that the CJEU imposes several requirements, that an integration obligation must fulfil to be compatible with EU law. The obligation must consider the specific situation of asylum seekers, including their special needs, personal circumstances and specific integration challenges they may face. The recast Qualification Directive, Article 34 is not intended to penalise beneficiaries of international protection, but to promote integration according to each individuals' capabilities. The CJEU judgment lists some of the individual circumstances that Member States must take into account when imposing an integration obligation. These include age, level of education, financial situation, and state of health. A beneficiary of international protection who fails the examination due to any of these circumstances must have the opportunity to submit evidence of the reasonable efforts made to pass the exam. The Council of State added that the CJEU also underlined that certain beneficiaries of international protection must be exempted from the exam, if they can substantiate that they have already been effectively integrated into the host society, in line with the living conditions and circumstances characterising their stay. Finally, the council observed that Member States must establish a basic level of knowledge required for passing the integration exam, and this must not go beyond what is necessary to promote integration, taking into account the beneficiary's specific situation, especially if not permanently residing in the host country.

Then, the Council of State continued with the analysis of paragraphs related to the imposition of a fine (74-75) and the costs of the integration programme and the government loan (80-86). The CJEU concluded that failing the exam cannot be punished systematically with a fine, and this can only be applied in exceptional cases, when objective evidence shows that an individual demonstrated a proven and persistent lack of willingness to integrate. The fine cannot impose an unreasonable financial burden on the person concerned, given their personal circumstances. In light of these considerations, the CJEU concluded that the systematically imposed Dutch administrative fine amounting to EUR 1,250 when failing to pass the integration exam on time was manifestly disproportionate to the objective pursued under the law. The CJEU also underlined that mandatory integration measures for beneficiaries of international protection must be free of charge. The situation was only different when a beneficiary has sufficient financial resources. In that case, a Member State may request a contribution to the costs, if the amount is not unreasonable. In light of these considerations, the CJEU again concluded that the Dutch system under the Civic Integration Act 2013 was contrary to the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34. The fact that a loan can be received and its repayment is waived upon successful passing of the exam does not alter this.

As a consequence, the Council of State concluded that:

• The Civic Integration Act, Article 31(1) conflicts with the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34 and as such, it is not binding. The legal basis for imposing a fine on the appellant is therefore invalid. The State Secretary argued in its response to the judgment that the fine should still remain valid, as the appellant did not demonstrate willingness to integrate in that first integration period (failing to keep appointments with the supervisors, not showing up for 9 out of 17 exams and failing 8 exams). However, the Council of State underlined that the Ministry did not impose the fine for lack of willingness to integrate and such conduct is not considered a violation under the Civic Integration Act 2013 or any other statutory provision that could apply. The principle of legality thus precluded a fine for this conduct.
• The Civic Integration Act, Article 16(4) related to the repayment obligation of the government loan is in conflict with the recast Qualification Directive, Article 34 and as such, it is not binding in so far as it concerns beneficiaries of international protection. Thus, the Ministry wrongly determined that the appellant had to repay this loan.

The council also noted that while the judgment concerned the Civil Integration Act 2013, and a new, Civic Integration Act 2021 came into force in the meantime, its conclusions remain relevant for the new system as well. According to the new law, beneficiaries of international protection must no longer pay for their civic integration courses and exams themselves, but the civic integration obligation remains, and beneficiaries can receive fines at various times.