In the case of P. and S., the Court of Justice of the European Union already issued a decision on 4 June 2015 on the questions referred to it by the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep, CRvB) of the Netherlands, specifically whether non-EU citizens holding a permanent residence permit as so-called “long-term residents” could be fined for not passing an integration exam (inburgeringsexamen). Now the Tribunal has issued a final decision in the case of Ms. P., one of the parties involved.
With regard to the case of Ms. S. against the municipality of Amstelveen, the Tribunal already issued a final judgment last year, specifically that her higher appeal was inadmissible, since as a national of Croatia she had meanwhile become an EU citizen, and therefore could not be forced to satisfy integration requirements.
With regard to Ms. P., the Tribunal referred the case back to the municipality of Breda with instructions to take the European Court’s decision into account in reconsidering the municipality’s original decision from 2010, which established that P. had to satisfy integration obligations. The European Court had said, among other things, that when considering whether a long-term resident can be penalized for not satisfying integration obligations, it is necessary to take that person’s financial and medical situation into account.
The Dutch Act on Integration, on the basis of which the municipality of Breda had determined that P. had an integration requirement, does not satisfy that requirement, considering that it provides that it is up to the person involved to go out of their way to apply for an exemption from the integration requirement. An exemption on financial grounds will only be granted if the person earns less than the minimum standard of living, and an exemption on medical grounds will only be granted after an examination by a physician appointed by the municipality.
P. argued that she and her Dutch wife are living above the minimum standard, if only barely, but that the costs of an integration course and taking the integration exam would nonetheless be unbearable for their financial situation. P. also argued that she had already provided plenty of evidence to the municipality from the physicians treating her that she suffers from various psychiatric disorders such as panic attacks and borderline disorder, which meant that forcing her to comply with integration requirements would be extremely traumatic for her and worsen her condition. Moreover, she did not trust a physician appointed by the municipality to provide an objective evaluation of her ability to comply with integration requirements.
On 29 August 2016, the municipality accepted P.’s latter argument in reconsidering its 2010 decision in light of the Tribunal’s instructions (and the European Court’s decision), and declared P.’s original objection against the decision to be well founded: P. cannot (and could not) possibly have a legal obligation to comply with the integration requirement, which meant that the original decision, which set a deadline for her to comply or be fined, was unlawful. On 20 January 2017, the Tribunal drew the conclusions from this that P.’s higher appeal to the Tribunal was well founded, the decision of the lower District Court of Breda (declaring P.’s original judicial appeal to be inadmissible) could be struck down, and that the municipality has to restitute all of P.’s legal costs to her, amounting to €6,008.81, as well as all of the filing fees she paid.
For more information about this case, please contact P.’s attorney Jeremy Bierbach.