The Administrative Jurisdiction Division considered that the earlier fine decision and the loan recovery decision were “manifestly incorrect.” This originates from the Court of Justice ruling in Luxembourg in February 2025 and the subsequent Administrative Jurisdiction Division ruling in July 2025. It was ruled that an integration obligation is in principle compatible with the European Qualification Directive, but failing to pass the integration exam on time cannot systematically be punished with a fine. Since mandatory integration measures for status holders should in principle be free of charge, the repayment obligation of the government loan also conflicts with the European Qualification Directive.
Because the fine decision is manifestly incorrect, it is clearly unreasonable that the State Secretary does not retract 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, while the State Secretary will never be able to enforce that obligation. This is a highly undesirable factual and legal situation.
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division proceeds in today’s ruling and ‘provides for the case itself.’ This means the fine imposed by the State Secretary is annulled and 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 determined that the asylum status holder must fully repay the loan is primarily up to the State Secretary.