Since 2007, a statute has been in force in the Netherlands (the Wet inburgering or Act on Civic Integration) that provides for a system of fines that can be imposed on certain classes of immigrants for not passing the ‘civic integration exam’, testing knowledge of Dutch language and culture, by a certain deadline. However, the way in which the statute defines the precise obligations on immigrants, which classes of immigrants have those obligations, what the exact deadline is and when it can be extended leaves much to be desired in terms of legal certainty, especially considering the frequent changes that the legislature of the Netherlands makes to the statute. Morever, since a fine is imposed as a penalty for what is effectively a ‘criminal charge’ (in the sense of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights), what role does the establishment in a fair trial of the immigrant’s culpability play in the imposition of such a fine? For a completely different perspective on integration policy, the author discusses the 2015 decision P. and S. of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which he was the legal representative of the plaintiffs. When an immigrant is a beneficiary of an EU directive providing for immigration rights for third-country nationals, the Court holds that it is permissible to impose fines in order to stimulate the immigrant’s integration in the society of the host member state, but that such a penalty may not go so far as to actively endanger the goal of aiding integration. In general, the Court is highly sceptical of the effectiveness and fairness of the system of fines provided for by the Act on Civic Integration. The author concludes that the Act, with its clear emphasis on punishment rather than promotion of civic integration, ultimately has the effect of criminalising entire classes of immigrants to the Netherlands.

The effective return of third-country nationals who do not have a right to stay in the EU is an essential component of the European Migration Agenda. At EU level, the return policy is regulated by the Return Directive (2008/115/EC). Since the entry into force of this directive in 2010, the migratory pressure on the Member States and the Union as a whole has increased. As a result, the challenges related to the effective return of irregular migrants need to be adressed more than ever. Accordingly, the European Commission proposed a recast of the Return Directive. This article analyses some key features of this recast.

Juliet Stumpf is de Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy and Ethics aan de Lewis & Clark Law School. Stumpf onderzoekt het fenomeen crimmigratie door een interdisciplinaire lens, waarbij ze inzichten uit het (immigratie- & straf-) recht in verband brengt met inzichten uit de sociale en geesteswetenschappen. Haar werk is gepubliceerd in een indrukwekkende reeks tijdschriften en boeken, waaronder een serie van ‘crimmigratie-artikelen’ waarvan haar inmiddels breed bekende artikel ‘The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign Power’ (56 Am. U. L. Rev. 367) de eerste was.