An asylum applicant received penalty payments from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) because his asylum application was not decided within the applicable time limits. Subsequently, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) requested the applicant to provide a personal contribution to the cost of reception.  COA made this request in line with Article 20 of the Regulation on Provision of Asylum Seekers and Other categories of Aliens (RVA 2005), which stipulates that applicants with assets above the capital limit laid down in Article 34 of the Participation Act must contribute to reception costs. Under a cooperation agreement between the IND and COA, COA received information from the IND about the penalty payments paid to the applicant, totalling €16,442, and determined that he had assets above the capital limit. By decision of 4 March 2021, COA requested a personal contribution of €878 from the applicant. An appeal lodged by the applicant before the District Court of the Hague seated in Groningen was declared unfounded on 28 October 2021. The applicant lodged a further appeal before the Council of State. First, the applicant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because COA’s decision should have been challenged through an objection procedure rather than a direct appeal. The council agreed that determining a personal contribution is not equivalent to withholding or terminating reception benefits and therefore this situation should normally be challenged first through an objection. However, since both parties accepted skipping that stage and the applicant had an interest in a final decision, the council chose to assess the appeal on the merits.The applicant argued that the district court wrongly held that the IND could lawfully share information about forfeited penalty payments with COA. He claimed that Article 107 of the Vw 2000 does not provide a legal basis for transmitting such information and that, because of this lack of legal basis, the data sharing violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). He also argued that the IND should not have forwarded the decision of 13 August 2020 containing both the rejection of his asylum application and the penalty payment of €16,442. The council rejected this argument. It noted that COA’s decision of 4 March 2021 was based on a notification received from the IND on 18 January 2021, which contained only limited essential data rather than the full decision. According to the cooperation agreement between the IND and COA, the IND shares only the foreign national’s V-number, the amount of the penalty, the payment date, and the case number.

The council confirmed that the GDPR allows the processing of personal data when it is necessary for the performance of a statutory task carried out in the public interest. The shared information qualifies as personal data because the V-number and case number can be linked to an identifiable individual, and its use therefore constitutes processing under the GDPR. The council held that Article 107 of the Vw 2000 provides a sufficiently clear and precise legal basis for this processing. Information about forfeited penalty payments forms part of the “aliens administration” because it relates to the implementation of the Aliens Act and records decisions taken late by the minister. Since COA must provide reception to asylum seekers and determine whether they must contribute to the costs of reception when they possess assets above the relevant threshold, the council ruled that COA requires information about such financial resources. It confirmed that IND holds this information and may share it with COA because it is necessary for the implementation of COA Act and related regulations. The council further found that COA’s use of the data to determine a personal contribution to reception costs is necessary and proportionate to its statutory task. Reception is intended only for those unable to support themselves, and the financial burden on public resources justifies assessing an asylum seeker’s assets. It found that the limited scope of the shared data and the safeguards in the cooperation agreement also support the lawfulness of the processing. Consequently, the data sharing complied with the GDPR, and the district court correctly concluded that the IND was permitted to provide the information to COA.

The applicant also argued that the district court wrongly concluded that he had failed to comply with his obligation, established during the rights and obligations meeting of 23 September 2019, to report the receipt of the penalty payment to COA. He claimed that he never had the opportunity to inform COA himself because the IND sent him the decision of 13 August 2020 and allegedly forwarded it to the COA at the same time.

The council rejected this argument. It assumed that COA based its decision of 4 March 2021 on the IND’s notification of 18 January 2021. Although a letter in the case file indicated that the IND’s system can automatically generate notifications when an asylum decision is taken, this did not mean that COA had already been informed of the penalty payment at that early stage. Moreover, the applicant did not demonstrate that he had voluntarily informed COA about receiving the penalty payment at any time between 13 August 2020 and 4 March 2021, even though he had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, the claim that he lacked the opportunity to report the payment himself was unfounded, and this part of the complaint failed.

Finally, the applicant argued that the district court incorrectly stated that it had been explained during the hearing that he had no debts. He denied that this had been discussed and further complained that he had not been heard about his financial situation before the decision was made.

The council acknowledged that the hearing record does not show that the question of whether the applicant had debts was discussed. However, it found that this did not affect the outcome because the applicant did not claim, either before the court or on appeal, that he actually had debts that should have been deducted from his assets. Therefore, the complaint could not succeed.

The council also rejected the argument that the applicant had not been heard beforehand about his financial situation.  COA stated that it had discussed the personal contribution with the applicant on 4 March 2021, and the applicant did not dispute this. Consequently, this part of the complaint also failed.

As a result, the appeal was declared unfounded, and the decision of the district court was set aside.