Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:52
Date: 2025-02-04
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
15 March 2023 
Referring court:  
Raad van State (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
15 March 2023 
Applicant:  
T.G. 
Defendant:  
Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings concern a dispute between T.G., an Eritrean beneficiary of 
international protection in the Netherlands, and the Minister van Sociale Zaken en 
Werkgelegenheid (Minister for Social Affairs and Employment; ‘the Minister’), 
concerning the Minister’s decision to impose a fine on T.G. and to order him to 
repay the loan he took out to finance his civic integration courses and 
examinations. The reason for that decision was that T.G. did not fulfil his civic 
integration obligation within the prescribed period. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
This application pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerns the interpretation of 
Article 34 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals 
or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform 
status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the 
content of the protection granted (‘the Qualification Directive’). More 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-158/23 
 
2  
specifically, the question is whether the system of civic integration in the 
Netherlands satisfies the obligation, laid down in that article, to ensure that 
beneficiaries of international protection can access integration programmes or to 
create pre-conditions which guarantee access to such programmes. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 34 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted as precluding a 
national rule such as that laid down in Article 7b of the Wet inburgering (Law on 
civic integration), pursuant to which holders of asylum status are placed under the 
obligation, on pain of a fine, to pass a civic integration examination? 
2. Must Article 34 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted as precluding a 
national rule based on the premiss that holders of asylum status themselves bear 
the full costs of integration programmes? 
3. In answering the second question, is it significant that holders of asylum 
status can receive a government loan to cover the costs of integration programmes 
and that that loan is waived if they pass their civic integration examination on time 
or are exempted from or released from the civic integration obligation in good 
time? 
4. If it is permissible, under Article 34 of the Qualification Directive, that 
holders of asylum status are obliged, on pain of a fine, to pass a civic integration 
examination, and that holders of asylum status bear the full costs of integration 
programmes, does the amount of the loan to be repaid, whether or not together 
with the fine, then undermine the achievement of the purpose and useful effect of 
Article 34 of the Qualification Directive? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 34 of the Qualification Directive 
Recital 4 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 
2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents 
(OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44; ‘the Long-Term Residents Directive’) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Articles 3 and 7b of the Wet inburgering (Law on civic integration; ‘the Wi’) 
Article 4.16a of the Regeling inburgering (Rules on civic integration) 
MINISTER VAN SOCIALE ZAKEN EN WERKGELEGENHEID 
 
3 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 T.G., an Eritrean national, arrived in the Netherlands at the age of 17. He then 
obtained a temporary residence permit issued to persons granted asylum, enabling 
him to receive international protection in the Netherlands. On 8 January 2016, 
when T.G. was 18 years old, the Minister informed him that, as of 1 February 
2016, he would be subject to the civic integration obligation under the Wi. This 
means that, in principle, he had to pass all parts of the civic integration 
examination within a period of three years. The Minister extended that period 
until 1 February 2020 on the ground that T.G. had stayed in an accommodation 
centre for a long time and had undergone training. 
2 Since T.G. had not completed his civic integration in time, the Minister imposed 
on him a fine of EUR 500 and ordered the repayment in full of the EUR 10 000 
loan he had taken out. Ultimately, T.G. was relieved of the civic integration 
obligation 1 year and 10 months after the expiry of the civic integration period 
because, according to the Minister, he had made sufficient efforts to integrate at 
that time. This is without prejudice to the obligation to pay the fine and repay the 
loan. 
3 T.G. lodged an objection to that decision, which was dismissed as unfounded on 
25 February 2021. On 4 November 2021, the rechtbank Amsterdam (District 
Court, Amsterdam) dismissed his action as unfounded. T.G. brought an appeal 
against that judgment before the Raad van State (Council of State), which is the 
referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The District Court, Amsterdam held that Article 34 of the Qualification Directive 
had not been incorrectly transposed. It points out, as does the Minister, that the 
national civic integration system allows for the provision of personalised solutions 
through potential extensions, exemptions and dispensations. In addition, the loan 
provided can be repaid according to one’s ability to pay. Nor is there any breach 
of the principle of proportionality enshrined in EU law, since the Minister 
addressed, with reasons, and weighed all the circumstances relied on. According 
to the District Court, the Minister took sufficient account of T.G.’s personal 
circumstances by extending the civic integration period from three to four years 
and reducing the fine from EUR 1 250 to EUR 500. 
5 On appeal, T.G. submits that the Netherlands civic integration system constitutes 
an incorrect transposition of Article 34 of the Qualification Directive. That article 
gives rise to a positive right to integration, whereas the high costs associated with 
the penalties and loans actually hinder integration. T.G. refers, in that regard, to 
the principle of proportionality of EU law and to the judgment of 4 June 2015, P 
and S, C-579/13, EU:C:2015:369 (‘the judgment in P and S’). The high costs are 
also a barrier preventing access to integration programmes. In addition, the system 
in the Netherlands does not sufficiently take into account the special needs and 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-158/23 
 
4  
specific problems of holders of asylum status in terms of integration. As T.G. had 
already borrowed the maximum amount of EUR 10 000, he no longer had any 
money for additional civic integration courses. For all these reasons, he argues, 
the Minister should have waived the fine and the recovery of the loan. 
6 According to the Minister, the Qualification Directive does not preclude the 
Netherlands civic integration system as provided for by the Wi. Indeed, T.G. was 
given the opportunity to participate in integration programmes. It further follows 
from the judgment in P and S that a fine is an acceptable integration incentive, and 
the Minister considers the fine imposed on T.G. to be appropriate and necessary. 
The fact that T.G. must repay the loan in full is not unreasonable, since, in 
principle, a loan must be repaid in full and T.G. was not exempted from the civic 
integration obligation until well after the civic integration period had expired. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 In the Netherlands, Article 34 of the Qualification Directive has been transposed 
into the Wi, which aims to reinforce foreign nationals’ own responsibility for their 
civic integration. It is apparent from Article 3 of the Wi that holders of asylum 
status are subject to the civic integration obligation, in the same way as holders of 
certain other residence permits, such as long-term residents. In principle, every 
person subject to the civic integration obligation must pass all parts of the civic 
integration examination within a period of three years. It is apparent from 
Article 7b of the Wi that the Minister is to extend that period for civic integration 
in cases where the person subject to the civic integration obligation cannot be 
blamed for having exceeded that period or where they are attending a literacy 
course. The Minister also extends the civic integration period in cases where the 
person subject to the civic integration obligation has made demonstrable efforts to 
integrate. In certain cases, the Minister may grant a dispensation or exempt the 
person subject to the civic integration obligation from that obligation. 
8 As a rule, the costs of integration programmes are borne by the persons subject to 
the civic integration obligation themselves. They can apply for a loan of up to 
EUR 10 000 for this purpose. The loan can be used for civic integration courses, 
civic integration examinations and/or literacy courses. Holders of asylum status 
are not required to repay the loan if they have passed all parts of the civic 
integration examination within the civic integration period or if they are exempted 
or relieved from the civic integration obligation within that period. If they have 
not fulfilled their civic integration obligation or have fulfilled it too late, they 
must, in principle, repay the loan in full. 
9 Based on the desire to provide more personalised solutions, Article 4.16a of the 
Rules on civic integration entered into force on 1 January 2022, under which it is 
possible to waive all or part of the loan. The Minister applies that transitional 
provision to persons who are in the process of paying off their debt on 1 January 
2022, making that article relevant in the present case as well. In principle, the 
MINISTER VAN SOCIALE ZAKEN EN WERKGELEGENHEID 
 
5 
Minister will only waive part of the debt if the person subject to the civic 
integration obligation fulfils the civic integration obligation within six months of 
the expiry of the time limit or is relieved of the obligation within that period. In 
special cases, the Minister can also partially cancel the debt if the person subject 
to the civic integration obligation has not fulfilled the civic integration obligation 
within six months, or the Minister can cancel the debt completely. The period for 
repayment of the loan may not exceed 10 years, taking into account the debtor’s 
ability to pay. In case of insufficient ability to pay, the Minister sets the amount to 
be repaid at EUR 0 per month. Any balance remaining after 10 years is written 
off, with the exception of overdue instalments. 
10 In the light of the grounds of the appeal, the Council of State faces the question of 
whether the imposition of a civic integration obligation, whether or not combined 
with the fine for late civic integration and the obligation to repay the loan, is 
contrary to the right of access to integration programmes provided for in 
Article 34 of the Qualification Directive. In that context, the question also arises 
as to whether the Wi’s premiss that the costs of the civic integration are to be 
borne by the persons subject to a civic integration obligation themselves is in line 
with Article 34 of the Qualification Directive. 
The civic integration obligation 
11 The civic integration obligation is not a precondition for obtaining or maintaining 
international protection. In paragraph 48 of the judgment in P and S, the Court of 
Justice held that an obligation to pass a civic integration examination ensures that 
the third-country nationals concerned acquire knowledge which is undeniably 
useful for establishing connections with the host Member State. Such an 
obligation may thus contribute to the achievement of the objectives pursued by the 
Long-Term Residents Directive. A fine is also an acceptable integration incentive 
in principle, according to the Court of Justice in that judgment. 
12 The Council of State considers, however, that the considerations from the 
judgment in P and S cannot be applied like-for-like to this case. That judgment 
concerns only third-country nationals who applied for long-term resident status 
between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2010. Article 5(2) of the Long-Term 
Residents Directive provides for the possibility for Member States to impose an 
integration obligation. This possibility is lacking in the Qualification Directive, 
and it is the Member States that are required to provide access to integration 
programmes for holders of asylum status. The context of the two directives also 
differs in that the Long-Term Residents Directive refers to persons who wish to 
settle permanently in a Member State or are already permanently settled there. For 
them, integration is a key element in promoting economic and social cohesion 
(recital 4 of the directive). The Qualification Directive covers persons in need of 
protection who do not necessarily wish to settle permanently in the Member State. 
13 In the absence of the possibility of imposing an integration obligation, Article 34 
of the Qualification Directive could preclude national legislation, such as that laid 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-158/23 
 
6  
down in the Wi, which imposes on holders of asylum status the obligation to pass 
a civic integration examination, on pain of a fine. Paragraph 95 of the judgment of 
24 June 2015, T., C-373/13, EU:C:2015:413 (‘the judgment in T.’), which 
concerns the predecessor of the Qualification Directive (Directive 2004/83/EC), 
also leads to the conclusion that Member States do not have the power to impose 
such an obligation on holders of asylum status. The Court of Justice considers that 
the Member States have no discretion as to whether to grant or to refuse the 
substantive benefits guaranteed by the directive, which therefore also include 
integration programmes. 
14 Chapter VII of Directive 2004/83 and Chapter VII of the Qualification Directive 
are very similar. The conditions and restrictions laid down in those chapters do not 
concern an integration obligation. However, the question is whether an integration 
obligation constitutes a restriction or whether, on the contrary, in line with the 
Court of Justice’s considerations in the judgment in P and S, such an obligation 
ensures that holders of asylum status actually integrate. 
15 In its proposal to replace the Qualification Directive with a Qualification 
Regulation (COM(2016) 466 final), the European Commission proposed adding a 
new second paragraph to Article 38 on access to integration measures, which 
states: ‘Member States may make participation in integration measures 
compulsory.’. The question is whether it follows from this that the civic 
integration obligation is not yet permissible at this stage or whether the 
Commission intends to explicitly lay down an already existing possibility in the 
regulation. 
16 In the view of the Council of State, the imposition of an integration obligation on 
holders of asylum status is not in itself a restriction on the right of access to 
integration programmes and is therefore not precluded by Article 34 of the 
Qualification Directive. However, in view of the wording and purpose of that 
article, the judgment in T. and the European Commission’s proposal, that 
interpretation does not appear to be beyond doubt. 
The fine 
17 An administrative fine is a penalty and can therefore only be imposed for an 
infringement, or a prohibited practice. The question which arises is therefore 
whether a (positive) right derived from EU law to access integration programmes 
can ultimately, in Netherlands law, lead to a prohibited practice, which may be 
penalised if that right is not exercised. However, if a civic integration obligation 
may be imposed, the Council of State assumes that the Minister can also impose a 
fine if the integration obligation has not been complied with, provided that the fine 
is proportionate. 
MINISTER VAN SOCIALE ZAKEN EN WERKGELEGENHEID 
 
7 
The loan and the repayment obligation 
18 The Wi is based on the principle that holders of asylum status must also pay the 
costs of integration programmes themselves. It is conceivable that most holders of 
asylum status cannot afford such costs on their own. In that case, they can take out 
a loan of up to EUR 10 000 for this purpose. T.G. had to take out the maximum 
loan to pay for the civic integration examinations and courses. The maximum loan 
of EUR 10 000 is common in such cases. 
19 The Council of State considers that the Wi’s premiss that holders of asylum status 
are also obliged to pay the full cost of civic integration is contrary to Article 34 of 
the Qualification Directive. By charging the full cost of the civic integration 
programmes to the person subject to the civic integration obligation, the Minister 
does not create pre-conditions which effectively guarantee access to such 
programmes. Given the high costs of those programmes and the generally limited 
financial capacity of holders of asylum status, the Council of State sees this as an 
obstacle to the right of access to integration programmes. The fact that persons 
subject to the civic integration obligation can apply for a loan to finance the costs 
of the integration programmes does not alter this. After all, if they do not pass the 
civic integration examination or do not pass it on time, they have to repay the loan 
in full and are left with a high level of debt. Only if they pass all parts of the civic 
integration examination in good time or are exempted or relieved from the civic 
integration obligation in good time will the loan be waived. 
20 It could be argued that holders of asylum status have control over whether they 
complete their civic integration on time and thus whether or not they have to repay 
the loan in full. But even then there is doubt as to how the repayment obligation 
relates to Article 34 of the Qualification Directive. That article obliges Member 
States to create pre-conditions which guarantee access to the integration 
programmes for all holders of asylum status, including those who are unable or 
unwilling to pass the civic integration examination in good time. In the 
Netherlands system, persons who fail to pass the civic integration examination or 
pass it too late are not reimbursed for the costs of civic integration. There does not 
appear to be any scope for this under the Qualification Directive. Due to the 
obligation to integrate, persons subject to the civic integration obligation cannot 
usually avoid these costs either. The fact that those persons may set up a payment 
scheme which takes into account their ability to pay is of lesser importance in this 
respect. In that case, the obligation to repay a significant debt remains in place for 
up to 10 years, which may actually hinder effective integration in the Member 
State. 
Cost of the fine and repayment of the loan – effectiveness 
21 If the fine and the loan repayment obligation are, in themselves, permissible under 
EU law, the next question is whether the amount of those sums jeopardises the 
achievement of the objective and the effectiveness of Article 34 of the 
Qualification Directive. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-158/23 
 
8  
22 In the judgment in P and S, the Court of Justice held that the maximum amount of 
the fine, namely EUR 1 000, is high and that that fine may, moreover, be imposed 
again and again until the person concerned has passed the examination. According 
to the Court of Justice, that, combined with the costs of preparing for and taking 
the examinations, is liable to jeopardise the pursuit of integration and deprive the 
objectives of the Long-Term Residents Directive of their effectiveness. However, 
the judgment in P and S does not deal with the Qualification Directive. Under the 
Netherlands civic integration regime of the Wi, holders of asylum status can also 
face successive fines. The Council of State has previously found the Minister’s 
policy on fines not unreasonable in general, given the mitigation options it 
provides for. If the imposition of a (possibly repeated) fine is compatible with 
Article 34 of the Qualification Directive, it does not impede the effectiveness of 
that article either. If the policy on fines does turn out to be disproportionate in an 
individual case, the administrative body and, on appeal, the court are required to 
reduce the fine to a proportionate penalty. In the present case, the Minister has 
already reduced the fine. 
23 The Council of State regards the obligation to repay the loan, whether or not in 
combination with the fine, as a potential obstacle to the effectiveness of Article 34 
of the Qualification Directive. In the present case, the loan and the fine together 
amount to EUR 10 500. In view of this high cost, it is conceivable that recovery of 
the loan would soon go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of 
Article 34, namely facilitating integration, and would therefore be contrary to the 
principle of proportionality. The fine alone is capable of ensuring that persons 
subject to the civic integration obligation fulfil that obligation, whereas 
(substantial) debt is likely to hinder further integration. The fact that holders of 
asylum status may benefit from a payment scheme which takes into account their 
ability to pay may mitigate this effect. On the other hand, T.G. argued that an 
assessment of the ability to pay could discourage employment, which would have 
a negative effect on integration. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
24 In the light of all those considerations, the Council of State asks the Court of 
Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the questions set out above.