The Administrative Jurisdiction Division considered that the earlier fine decision and the decision to reclaim the loan are “manifestly incorrect.” This stems from the February 2025 ruling by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the subsequent July 2025 ruling by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. It was ruled that an integration obligation is in principle compatible with the European Qualifications Directive, but that failing to pass the integration exam on time should not be systematically punished with a fine. Since the mandatory integration measures for status holders must in principle be free of charge, the repayment obligation of the government loan also conflicts with the European Qualifications Directive.
Because the fine decision is manifestly incorrect, it is evidently unreasonable that the State Secretary does not withdraw this decision. Regarding the loan repayment obligation, this decision is unenforceable due to the July 2025 ruling. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division sees no interest served by maintaining this manifestly incorrect decision. The repayment obligation would then hang threateningly over the status holder’s head, while the State Secretary will never be able to enforce this obligation. This is a highly undesirable factual and legal situation.
In today’s ruling, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division proceeds and ‘provides for the case itself.’ This means that the fine imposed by the State Secretary is annulled and that the status holder is not obliged to repay the loan they took out. What this means for other cases in which the State Secretary has imposed a fine on an asylum status holder and/or has determined that the asylum status holder must fully repay the loan is primarily up to the State Secretary.