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.

This article deals with the criminal offence of recruiting persons for armed struggle (art. 205 of the Dutch Criminal Code), a provision that nowadays mainly arises in terrorism cases. It revolves around the dilemmas and interpretative questions that this criminal offence has yielded so far – especially since the amendments in 2004 – and examines how the courts have dealt with it.

At first sight there seems to be a strong relationship between crimmigration and the criminology of administrative law enforcement. However, a further analysis shows that crimmigration fits more in the concept of the so-called integrated science of criminal justice. Crimmigration can be identified as an interdisciplinary concept, while the criminology of the administrative law enforcement should be classified as an empirical discipline. Nevertheless, both concepts complement each other with regard to the socio-scientific study of the practice of immigration law.

The inclusion of biometric data in EU border controls reflects a shift from immigration management as an original purpose by making control and identification of individuals a top priority. It also shows a preference for biometrical data as part of the European security strategy. This article elaborates on these so-called ‘EU Smart borders’ and focusses on the different existing central information systems including these data.