European Union
CJEU: Member States may impose civic integration requirements on beneficiaries of international protection under certain conditions
On 4 February 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in the case of T.G. v. Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Case C-158/23, Keren).
This request arises from a dispute between the applicant, T.G., an Eritrean national granted international protection in the Netherlands, and the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment of the Netherlands regarding a decision imposing a €500 fine on T.G. for failing to pass the civic integration exam within the prescribed period, as required under Dutch law for beneficiaries of international protection. Additionally, the Minister ordered T.G. to repay a €10,000 loan provided by the Dutch authorities to cover the costs of the civic integration programme. In this context, the Dutch Council of State, the referring Court, asked the CJEU to interpret Article 34 of the recast Directive 2011/95 (‘Qualification Directive’).
The CJEU examined the scope and objectives of Article 34 of the Qualification Directive in light of its wording, context, and overarching principles. The CJEU reiterated that this provision mandates Member States to facilitate the integration of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection by ensuring access to integration programmes tailored to their specific needs.
Regarding the first question, the Court ruled that Article 34 does not, in principle, preclude the imposition of a civic integration obligation, provided that such an obligation accounts for the specific circumstances of beneficiaries of international protection. It further held that the level of knowledge required to pass the examination must be set at an appropriate level, ensuring that it does not exceed what is necessary to facilitate integration. A beneficiary must be exempt from the obligation if they can demonstrate, based on their living conditions and personal circumstances, that they are already effectively integrated into the host society. While integration requirements may be enforced through incentives or proportionate penalties, the Court ruled that systematic fines for failing an integration examination are not permissible. A fine may only be imposed in exceptional cases, where objective factors demonstrate a persistent refusal to integrate. Furthermore, such penalties must not impose an unreasonable financial burden on the individual.
On the second and third questions, the Court found that requiring beneficiaries of international protection to bear the full costs of integration courses and examinations is incompatible with Article 34, as it creates a financial barrier that hinders effective access. It further ruled that the availability of a government loan scheme does not remedy this incompatibility, as the obligation to repay significant amounts over an extended period creates financial uncertainty and may discourage participation in integration programmes. While Member States may, in some cases, require a reasonable financial contribution from beneficiaries with sufficient means, integration measures should generally be free of charge. The Court emphasized that integration requirements must facilitate, rather than obstruct, the inclusion of beneficiaries into the host society and that financial barriers must not compromise the effectiveness of Article 34.
Back to top
CJEU: AG opinion on the interpretation of Article 46 of the Asylum Procedures Directive
On 6 February 2025, Advocate General Medina delivered her opinion in the case of FO v. Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou (Case C-610/23, Al Nasira).
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU (recast) (‘Asylum Procedures Directive’) and whether it precludes national legislation that dismisses an asylum appeal as manifestly unfounded without examining its merits, because the applicant did not appear in person at the hearing.
The applicant, FO, a third-country national, applied for international protection in Greece, claiming his life was at risk in his country of origin due to a tribal decision requiring him to be put to death. His application was rejected on credibility grounds. FO appealed this decision. He was informed that, even if he was not summoned to a hearing, he would be obliged to appear in person on the date of the examination of his appeal, unless he was lawfully staying at a reception and identification centre or was subjected to a restriction on movement or residence in a place outside the region of Attica (Greece). The applicant did not appear in person before the Appeals Committee (‘the Committee’) in Athens. The Committee verified that the applicant was not staying at a reception and identification centre and was not subjected to a restriction on movement. It also found that there were no force majeure grounds for his non-appearance. As a result, his appeal was dismissed without consideration of the merits, in accordance with Greek Law 4636/2019 (available in Greek), which presumes an appeal is improperly brought if the applicant does not attend the hearing in person. In addition, the Committee imposed a return measure without voluntary departure from the country pursuant to the Greek Law 3907/2011. The applicant challenged this before the Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, which referred questions to the CJEU.
AG Medina concluded that Article 46 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, read in light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in case of failure by an applicant for international protection to comply with a procedural obligation to appear in person before the body examining his or her appeal against a decision taken on his or her application, establishes a presumption that the appeal has been improperly brought and that the appeal should be dismissed as manifestly unfounded, without examination of the case as to its merits, to the extent that it does not provide for alternative means of proving the applicant’s presence in the territory.
AG Medina emphasized that an effective remedy under EU law requires a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and law. She further noted that while Member States have procedural autonomy, national rules must respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. A rigid procedural obligation to appear in person before the body examining the applicant’s appeal, that does not account for financial hardship or other legitimate obstacles, may disproportionately hinder the applicant’s right to of access to a court or tribunal and right to an effective remedy. The AG also pointed out that the aim of the presumption established by the Greek national legislation is to ensure that applicants for international protection are present in the territory and that they retain genuine interest in the appeal, and, more broadly, to safeguard the efficiency and expediency of judicial proceedings for all applicants for international protection. She highlighted that alternative means of proving presence in the Member State should be considered. Back to top
EUAA: Publication of two reports on the situation prevailing in Sudan
On 11 February 2025, the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) published two reports on Sudan, one Country Focus and one report on the Security Situation in the country.
The Country Focus published by the EUAA is divided in three parts. A first part providing an overview of Sudan’s historical context, state structure, judicial system and human rights situation. A second part on the treatment of specific groups of population and profiles (perceived political opponents; conscripts, draft evaders, forced recruitment to armed groups; journalists and other media personnel; humanitarian and health personnel; ethnic groups; women and girls; children; LGBTQ persons). Finally, the third part of the report addresses the socio-economic situation in Port Sudan.
The report on the Security Situation in Sudan is divided in two parts. The first part addresses the conflict, the major actors and the impact of the security situation on the civilian population. The second part of the report maps actors, conflict dynamics, security trends, major events, and their impact on the civilian population across different regions of the country.
Back to top
National Developments
Netherlands: The Advisory Division of the Council of State addressed two opinions on the Asylum Emergency Measures Act and the Act on the Introduction of a Dual Status System to the Minister of Asylum and Migration
On 10 February 2025, the Advisory Division of the Dutch Council of State published two advices ( W03.24.00362/II on the Act introducing the dual status system; W03.24.00364/II on the Asylum Emergency Measures Act) addressed to the Minister of Asylum and Migration.
The Advisory Division of the Council of State advised the Minister of Asylum and Migration not to submit the bills Asylum Emergency Measures Act and the Act on the Introduction of the Dual Status System in their current form to the House of Representatives. The aim of these bills is to immediately and permanently relieve the burden on the asylum chain and to reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving to the Netherlands. However, in the view of the Advisory Division of the Council of State, the explanatory memorandum to the bills does not make it plausible that the measures will actually contribute to limiting the influx or a more efficient asylum procedure. There is a good chance that the measures will actually lead to an additional burden on the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) and the judiciary. In addition, the Advisory Division of the Council of State indicated that the Netherlands will have to implement the European Asylum and Migration Pact in 2026. It further stated that the bills are not properly coordinated with the Pact and this will undermine legal certainty and may lead to additional problems in the implementation and the judiciary.
Based on an unofficial translation from within the EWLU team.
Back to top
Cyprus: Appeal judgment on subsidiary protection and internal relocation
On 11 February 2025, the Court of Appeal of Cyprus issued its judgment in the case of Republic of Cyprus through the Asylum Service v. QBT (Appeal No. 107/2023), concerning the grant of subsidiary protection status and the feasibility of internal relocation under Cypriot asylum law.
The case involved a Cameroonian national, QBT, who applied for international protection in Cyprus claiming that she and her mother suffered an assault by soldiers. Her application was rejected by the Cypriot Asylum Service. QBT challenged this administrative decision before the Court of First Instance which partially accepted her appeal, finding that although she did not meet the criteria for refugee status, violent incidents in Cameroon combined with her personal circumstances (gender, age, health status, professional prospects, absence of a family support network) warranted subsidiary protection under Article 19(2)(c) of the Refugee Laws. Moreover, she would not be able to relocate internally and lead a normal life in a different region of the country. The Asylum Service appealed this decision, arguing that the Court of First Instance had overstepped its jurisdiction and erred in assessing the applicant’s personal circumstances and the possibility of internal relocation within Cameroon.
The Court of Appeal held that under Article 11(3) of Law 73(I)/2018, the first-instance court had the authority to conduct a full review of both the legality and substance of asylum decisions, including granting subsidiary protection even if not explicitly requested. To support this finding, the Court of Appeal referred to national case law by the Supreme Constitutional Court as well as caselaw by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s establishing an obligation on the national Court to conduct a full ex nunc examination of both the factual and legal issues and in particular, where appropriate, an examination of the needs for international protection.
The Court of Appeal then found that the health-related risk assessment was flawed. Evidence showed that QBT had previously postponed state-offered medical treatment in Cyprus during the pandemic and had stated during the interview that her symptoms had subsided. There was no clear reason why her condition remained an obstacle to return two years after the conduct of that interview; the Court of First Instance should have considered whether and why this illness remained incurable. As a result, the findings on internal relocation feasibility (i.e., whether she could safely relocate to another city in Cameroon) were deemed irrelevant, since the decision to grant subsidiary protection was based on an erroneous health risk assessment that did not consider adequately the statements of the applicant. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the appeal and set aside the decision of the Administrative Court of International Protection. The case was remanded for reconsideration, instructing the lower court to reassess the case without the flawed health-related findings.
Based on an unofficial translation from within the EWLU team.
Back to top
ECRE
ECRE Comments Paper: Publication of a Comment Paper on the Regulation introducing the screening of third-country nationals at the external borders
On 06 February 2025, ECRE published a comments paper on the Regulation introducing the screening of third-country nationals at the external borders (‘Screening Regulation’). The Screening Regulation was adopted in May 2024 as one of the central pillars of the reformed Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
This comments paper is the latest in the series of ECRE analyses of the legislation that collectively forms the Pact on Migration and Asylum. It follows comments papers on the Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management, the Regulation on Addressing Situations of Crisis and Force Majeure in the Field of Migration and Asylum, the Directive Laying Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection and the Regulation establishing a Common Procedure for International Protection in the EU. It should be read together with the ECRE comments paper on the European Commission proposal for a Screening Regulation.
Unlike other legal instruments in the Pact, the Screening Regulation does not modify existing rules. Instead, it codifies practices often previously undertaken informally or only formalised in law or policy at the national level which form part of external border management. While it is presented as a new legal instrument, its provisions largely reflect existing processes at EU borders. The screening process is designed to either “seamlessly complement” external border checks or to compensate for their absence during border crossings. In addition, the Screening Regulation establishes rules to support border authorities in managing large-scale arrivals and to prevent absconding and secondary movements of international protection applicants.
Back to top
|
