EU Court limits Dutch fines for refugees failing integration exam

In most circumstances, the Dutch government is not permitted to financially penalize refugees with residency permits when they fail the national integration exam. It is predominantly not allowed to impose a fine on a status holder who has failed the integration exam, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) wrote in a ruling issued Tuesday.

The issue was brought before the European high court as the result of a case filed by an Eritrean refugee against the Dutch Cabinet. The EU court ruled that imposing a fine is only permitted in exceptional cases, such as when someone “persistently” puts in little effort to integrate.

The Eritrean man in this case failed to pass all parts of the integration examinations within four years. He did not take one of the test sections and had attempted other portions of the exam but had not passed them. As a result, he was ordered to repay the 10,000 euros financing he received from the government for the costs of the integration program and was fined 500 euros.

It is permitted to require refugees to pass their integration exam, the European court explained. However, their “particular vulnerability” and personal circumstances must be taken into account.

Dutch integration laws changed in 2022. Refugees are no longer required to pay for their integration courses and examinations themselves, making a loan for this unnecessary. However, they can still receive fines at various times.

Refugees granted residency who began their integration process before 2022 are still subject to the terms of the old law. The European court’s ruling may have consequences for people in this group who, like the Eritrean man in this case, have been fined or ordered to repay a loan.

The Council of State will now consider the CJEU ruling. The highest administrative court in the Netherlands will later issue its own statement on the verdict and its consequences for domestic policy. “The answers from the Court of Justice are therefore also important [with regard] to the new law,” the Council of State wrote earlier about the matter.