Integration Requirements For Third-Country Nationals: The Starting Fourth Dimension Cjeu Ruling

Steve Peers

When tin a Member State require immigrants to undertake integration courses? The Court of Justice dealt squarely alongside this number for the start fourth dimension inwards today’s judgment inwards P as well as S, which concerned the application of the EU’s Directive on the long-term residence of non-EU citizens. (The UK, Republic of Ireland as well as Kingdom of Denmark guide keep an opt-out from this law).

The judgment has a broader relevance, since the European Union Directive on job solid unit of measurement reunion for non-EU citizens likewise provides for Member U.S.A. to adopt integration conditions. On the other hand, European Union gratis displace constabulary does non supply for Member U.S.A. to impose such weather on European Union citizens or their job solid unit of measurement members. As for Turkish nationals, the EU-Turkey association understanding does non supply for such a status either, but Member U.S.A. may impose 1 bailiwick to a standstill dominion inwards most cases (see end year's Dogan judgment, discussed here).

Today’s judgment turns on the wording of the long-term residence Directive, which states that Member U.S.A. ‘may require third-country nationals to comply alongside integration conditions, inwards accordance alongside national law’. The example concerned non-EU citizens who already had long-term resident status nether the Directive, but Dutch constabulary all the same requires them to guide keep civic integration courses as well as penalises them alongside a fine every fourth dimension they fail. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 afterward alter to Dutch constabulary requires non-EU citizens to exceed these courses before they acquire long-term residence status, but that afterward version of the constabulary was non straight at number inwards this case.  

Judgment

According to the Court, the requirement to guide keep integration courses does non every bit such infringe the Directive, start as well as foremost because the Directive clearly permits an integration status to last imposed earlier obtaining long-term resident status. Next, the Court ruled that the requirement did non breach the equal handling dominion laid out inwards the Directive, since Dutch nationals could last presumed to guide keep cognition of Dutch monastic tell as well as the Dutch language, whereas non-EU citizens could not.

However, that was non the halt of the Court’s analysis. It so focussed on whether the national rules undercut the effectiveness of the Directive. The Directive had every bit its primary aim the integration of non-EU citizens, as well as the Court stated that learning the national linguistic communication as well as most the host State could facilitate communication alongside Dutch citizens, as well as ‘encourages interaction as well as the evolution of social relations’. Acquiring a cognition of Dutch likewise ‘makes it less difficult’ to honour operate as well as guide keep upward preparation courses. The integration requirement so contributed to the aims of the Directive.

The Court went on to say that at that topographic point were approximately limits upon what Member U.S.A. tin do, every bit regards ‘the grade of cognition required to exceed the civic integration examination’, ‘accessibility of the courses as well as the material  necessary to prepare’ for the exams, the grade of registration fees as well as ‘specific private circumstances, such every bit age, illiteracy or grade of education’. But the Court seemed most concerned most the amount of the fines, which were quite high as well as would last imposed for every failure, or fifty-fifty where the non-EU citizen had non sat the exam inside the required time. The fines were likewise imposed on top of the high fees to sit down the exam. So inwards regulation this seem of the organisation infringed European Union law, although it was left to the national courtroom to apply the Court’s ruling inwards practice. Finally, the Court stated that it was irrelevant whether the persons concerned already had long-term resident status, since (in this case) it was non a status for getting or retaining that status.

Comments

The Court’s ruling makes clear that Member U.S.A. tin inwards regulation impose integration requirements for long-term residence status, bailiwick to the regulation of effectiveness. The primary characteristic of that regulation inwards this example was the fees for failing (or non sitting) the exam, inwards conjunction alongside the fees for sitting the exam. Obviously the Dutch regime is similar a shot obliged to lower those fees, as well as other Member States’ rules could last challenged on the same basis. The ruling is plainly especially relevant to less wealthy migrants who would combat to pay the fines as well as essay fees several times over.

Although the Court did non dominion inwards whatever especial on the other limits which European Union constabulary imposes upon national integration requirements, such limits for sure exist, every bit regards the grade of cognition needed to pass, the accessibility of tests as well as materials, as well as ‘specific private circumstances’. It is non clear from the judgment precisely how Member U.S.A. are obliged to guide keep job organisation human relationship of such circumstances – whether yesteryear way of a consummate exemption from the essay or a unlike version of it. But it should last noted that the listing of specific circumstances mentioned yesteryear the Court is non exhaustive (‘such as’).

While the judgment clearly implies that Member U.S.A. may fifty-fifty withhold long-term residence status if an integration essay is non passed, the Court did non dominion on that number every bit such. So it remains opened upward to fence that at that topographic point may last stricter limits or other factors to consider when Member U.S.A. impose an integration status to acquire that status.

Nor did the Court dominion on whether the failure to run across an integration status could last a Earth to lose long-term resident status. The Directive does non listing this every bit 1 of the possible grounds for loss of that status, as well as it should follow from the objective of the Directive that the listing of grounds which could Pb to such a loss of status is exhaustive. This likewise follows from the construction of the Directive: if failure of an integration essay could Pb to loss of status, why did the drafters of the Directive alone advert integration tests inwards the clause dealing alongside acquisition of that status?

Today’s judgment is alone the start inwards a delineate of cases upcoming concerning integration weather (the side yesteryear side batch of cases concern the parallel clause inwards the job solid unit of measurement reunion Directive). As a starting point, the Court has struck a proficient residual betwixt ensuring that immigrants check into monastic tell as well as the bespeak to forestall integration tests forming a disguised way of excluding migrants from e'er actually plumbing equipment inwards despite their genuine efforts.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Share this post