Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:453
Date: 2015-07-09
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Immigration and asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 9 July 2015 Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86 — Conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Integration measures — National legislation laying down a requirement to pass a civic integration examination before authorisation of entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State — Lawfulness — Conditions — Taking account of special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to passing that examination — Reasonable costs (Council Direcitve 2003/86, Art. 7(2), first para.) The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination which consists in an assessment of basic knowledge both of the language of the Member State concerned and of its society and which entails the payment of various costs, before authorising those nationals entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State for the purposes of family reunification, provided that the conditions of application of such a requirement do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to family reunification, which is the case where they do not allow account to be taken of special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to the applicants passing the examination and where they set the fees relating to such an examination at too high a level. Since authorisation of family reunification is the general rule, the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, the margin for manoeuvre which the Member States are recognised as having must not be used by them in a manner which would undermine the objective of the directive, which is to promote family reunification, and the effectiveness thereof. In that regard, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, the measures implemented by the national legislation transposing the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be suitable for achieving the objectives of that legislation and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them. Accordingly, since the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 concerns only measures of ‘integration’, the measures which the Member States may require on the basis of that provision can be considered legitimate only if they are capable of facilitating the integration of the sponsor’s family members. In that regard, the requirement to pass a civic integration examination at a basic level is certainly capable of ensuring that the nationals of third countries acquire knowledge which is undeniably useful for establishing connections with the host Member State. However, in any event, the principle of proportionality requires the conditions of application of such a requirement not to exceed what is necessary to achieve the aims of family reunification pursued by Directive 2003/86. The integration measures referred to in that article must be aimed not at filtering those persons who will be able to exercise their right to family reunification, but at facilitating the integration of such persons within the Member States. Moreover, specific individual circumstances, such as the age, illiteracy, level of education, economic situation or health of a sponsor’s relevant family members must be taken into consideration in order to dispense those family members from the requirement to pass such a civic integration examination when, due to those circumstances, they are unable to take or pass that examination. Were that not the case, in such circumstances such a requirement could form a difficult obstacle to overcome in making the right to family reunification recognised by Directive 2003/86 exercisable. That interpretation is supported by Article 17 of the directive, which requires applications for family reunification to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, concerning in particular the various costs relating to such a civic integration examination, whilst the Member States are free to require third country nationals to pay various fees related to integration measures adopted under Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/86 as well as to determine the amount of those fees, the fact remains that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the level at which those costs are determined must not aim to, or have the effect of, making family reunification impossible or excessively difficult if it is not to undermine the objective of Directive 2003/86 and render it redundant. That would in particular be the case if the amount of the fees required to be paid to take the civic integration examination were excessive in the light of its significant financial impact on the third-country nationals concerned. (see paras 50-52, 54-60, 64, 65, 71, operative part)