Communicated on 1 July 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 45140/10
Timouch AHDOUR
against the Netherlands
lodged on 21 July 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Timouch Ahdour, is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Al Hoceima, Morocco. She is represented before the Court by Mr L. Louwerse, a lawyer practising in Utrecht.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Advice on the eligibility for the grant of a provisional residence visa
3. On 18 July 2007 the applicant married her husband, a widower of both Dutch and Moroccan nationality, in Morocco. On 12 October 2007 the applicant’s husband, requested advice (advies) of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken) on the applicant’s eligibility for a provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf). Such a visa entitles the holder to enter the Netherlands in order to apply for a residence permit for a stay exceeding three months (see below).
4. On 19 December 2007 the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued negative advice. The advice listed the requirements for the grant of a provisional residence visa, among them basic knowledge of the Dutch language and Netherlands society which was to be demonstrated by a successfully taken “civic integration examination” (inburgeringsexamen). The Minister stated that the applicant had not substantiated either that she had passed the civic integration examination, that there were circumstances in her case as a result of which the civic integration examination requirement would lead to disproportionate detriment, or that any refusal to grant her residence in the Netherlands would violate her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. No objection or appeal lay against the Minister’s advice as it did not have the status of a decision.
2. Administrative proceedings
5. On 24 June 2008 the applicant applied at the Netherlands representation in Rabat for a provisional residence visa for the purpose of taking up residence with her husband in the Netherlands.
6. On 25 July 2008 the applicant’s husband received a letter from the Visa Service (Visadienst) in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs requesting him to send proof that the applicant had passed the civic integration examination.
7. On 30 July 2008 the applicant’s representative notified the Visa Service of the applicant’s inability to take the civic integration examination owing to her illiteracy and to the fact that, although the applicant had made several attempts to learn the Dutch language, she could not understand it. The representative further argued that the Aliens Decree 2000 (Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000, “the Aliens Decree”) could not be relied on as a legal ground for requiring aliens to take a civic integration examination.
8. On 9 September 2008 the Minister of Foreign Affairs rejected the applicant’s request for a provisional residence visa. He stated that pursuant to the provisions of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000, “the Aliens Act”) and the Aliens Decree, it appeared that the applicant was required to take the civic integration examination but that she had failed to do so. He further noted that, apart from the fact that she had not shown that she was illiterate, there existed a special examination for illiterate persons that required merely oral proficiency. Restating his previous arguments, the Minister noted that there were no special reasons in the applicant’s case to set aside the requirement of the civic integration examination or to lay upon the Government a positive obligation to grant residence under Article 8 of the Convention.
9. On 15 September 2008 the applicant lodged an objection against the Minister’s decision. She argued that the provisions in the Aliens Decree containing the requirements for the residence permit on grounds of family reunion did not grant the power to set an additional requirement for the provisional residence visa such as the civic integration examination. Therefore the requirement of the taking of such an examination lacked a basis in law. In support of this argument, the applicant referred to a decision to that effect of the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam, of 15 July 2008 given in a different case (see paragraph 25 below). She further argued that the Minister’s decision constituted an unlawful interference with her right to respect for her family life.
10. By decision of 31 October 2008 the Minister of Foreign Affairs dismissed the applicant’s objection. He noted that a further appeal had been lodged against the Regional Court’s said decision of 15 July 2008 and that until the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) had decided the case, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie en Naturalisatiedienst) would not change its policy in relation to the civic integration examination. Consequently, the applicant could still be required to take the examination. In relation to the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, the Minister noted that she had not substantiated the alleged infringement.
3. Proceedings before the Regional Court
11. On 7 November 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ decision with the Regional Court of The Hague. Restating her arguments, she held that the Aliens Act could not be relied on as the legal ground for the civic integration examination requirement. In addition, she argued that this requirement violated her rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention because nationals of certain countries had been exempted from the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa and consequently from the civic integration examination. Referring to the Court’s case-law, she argued that no “very weighty reasons” were present to justify this difference in treatment on the basis of nationality. Lastly, the applicant stated that in his interpretation in relation to Article 8 of the Convention, the Minister had failed to take into consideration the following facts: that it was impossible for her to memorise the required Dutch words; that she lived in a village that provided no learning facilities; that she was 51 years old and had never been to school; that her husband had been living in the Netherlands for almost 39 years; and that in view of his age it could not be taken for granted that he could return to Morocco.
12. The Minister of Foreign Affairs responded by stating, firstly, that the decision of 15 July 2008 of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Amsterdam had been overturned by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State on 9 February 2009 (see paragraph 26 below); secondly, that the persons who did not need to obtain a provisional residence visa were excluded from the civic integration examination, with the result that the latter requirement did not depend on a person’s nationality; that the refusal to grant the provisional residence visa did not constitute an “interference” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention; and lastly, that the applicant had not submitted any documents to substantiate that there were objective obstacles to her establishing her family life in Morocco or to prove that it was permanently impossible for her to take the civic integration examination, which would place upon the Government a positive obligation to grant her residence in the Netherlands.
13. On 10 April 2009 the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Utrecht, held a hearing on the applicant’s case at which the parties elaborated on their arguments.
14. On 29 June 2009 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It noted that the provisions of the Aliens Act and the Aliens Decree, along with their drafting history and the Minister’s policy in relation to the implementation of these provisions, provided sufficient legal grounds for the civic integration examination requirement. It further considered that the exemption of certain nationalities from the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa did not constitute unlawful discrimination because there was reasonable and objective justification for it, namely the protection of the Netherlands economic order. In holding so, the court referred to a decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State of 31 January 2006 (see paragraph 24 below). Lastly, the Regional Court found that the refusal to grant the provisional residence visa had not been in violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
4. Proceedings before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State
15. On 23 July 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State received the applicant’s further appeal. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention the applicant stated that “the protection of the Netherlands economic order” did not constitute a very weighty reason such as to justify the difference in treatment on the basis of nationality. She further argued that the civic integration examination as a requirement for the provisional residence visa constituted a violation of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
16. On 29 January 2010 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division dismissed the applicant’s further appeal on summary grounds.
5. Subsequent events
17. On 6 August 2013 the Government informed the Court that on 11 July 2013 the applicant had been notified that the authorities had no objection to issuing her a 90-day, short-stay visa, thus enabling her to participate in the course “I want to go to the Netherlands” (Ik wil naar Nederland) from 23 September 2013 to 18 October 2013, for which she had registered in preparation for the civic integration examination abroad.
18. On 30 September 2013 the applicant informed the Court that she had indeed travelled to the Netherlands in order to participate in this course. However, in an intake session on 23 September 2013 it had been established that the applicant was unable to attend the course due to her illiteracy. A letter of the same date from the director of the institute organising the course further stated that one of the three sections of which the civic integration examination consisted required that a candidate be able to read, and that an illiterate person would definitely fail this section of the exam. The letter went on to say that the applicant would first have to learn to read and write before she stood a chance of being able to prepare for the civic integration examination. In view of her age, and the fact that she had never been to school, it was estimated that such would take years.
19. The applicant and her husband have never lived together. The applicant has visited her husband in the Netherlands on one other occasion, after she had been granted a 30-day short-stay visa. In addition, her husband frequently resides in Morocco.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The power to issue visa
20. The Sovereign Ordinance for the abolition of national passports and other provisions concerning national and international passports (Besluit afschaffing binnenlandse paspoorten en verdere reglementaire bepalingen ten aanzien van binnen- en buitenlandse paspoorten) of 12 December 1813 grants the Minister of Foreign Affairs the power to issue visas. In its relevant part, it reads as follows:
“Section 7
Aliens who arrive in [the Netherlands] shall subject the passports of which they are bearers to the visa of the secretary of state [i.e. the Minister of Foreign Affairs] ...”
21. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has given a mandate for the exercise of this power to the head of the Visa Service. The Head of Visa Service (Mandate) Ordinance 1997 (Besluit Mandaatverlening Hoofd Visadienst 1997), in its relevant part, reads as follows:
“Section 1
1. Mandate is given to the Head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service of the Ministry of Justice and to the Deputy Head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service to take and sign decisions that are made by them in their function of Head of the Visa Service and Deputy Head of the Visa Service respectively, in my name.
2. The mandate given in the first paragraph also includes the power to determine ... policy rules and instructions concerning the issuance of visa in so far as these fall within the sphere of activity of, and are directed to, the Visa Service, the authorities charged with carrying out border control and the chiefs of police.”
2. The Aliens Act 2000 and delegated legislation
22. The admission, residence and expulsion of aliens are regulated by the Aliens Act 2000. Further rules are laid down in the Aliens Decree 2000 and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000 (Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000).
23. Provisions of the abovementioned legislation, relevant to the case and as applicable at the relevant time, are the following:
a. The Aliens Act 2000
“Section 1
In this Act and all provisions made pursuant thereto, the following terms shall mean:
...
e. Community citizens (gemeenschapsonderdanen):
1˚. Citizens of the European Union Member States who are entitled to enter and stay in another Member State pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap);
...
3˚. Citizens of a State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [“EEA”] (Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte) of 2 May 1992 who as regards the entry and stay in a Member State enjoy rights equal to those of citizens of the European Union Member States.
...
h. provisional residence visa: the visa for a stay exceeding three months that is issued after previous authority of Our Minister of Foreign Affairs by the Netherlands diplomatic or consular mission in the country of origin, the country of habitual residence [of the alien] or, in the absence of these, in the nearest country that houses a [Netherlands] mission ... at that place and for which the alien has applied in person at that place.
...
Section 16
1. An application for a temporary residence permit ... may be rejected if:
a. the alien does not possess a valid provisional residence visa corresponding to the purpose of the residence permit;
...
h. the alien, not belonging to one of the categories mentioned in section 17, first paragraph, would, after obtaining legal stay in the Netherlands, be obliged to participate in a civic integration programme (inburgeringsplichtig) ... and does not have a basic level of knowledge of the Dutch language and Netherlands society.
...
Section 17
1. An application for a temporary residence permit ... will not be rejected for the absence of a valid provisional residence visa if it concerns:
a. an alien who possesses the nationality of one of the countries designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
b. a community citizen, in so far as [he or she is] not already exempted pursuant to a designation within the meaning of [sub-paragraph] a;
...
g. an alien who belongs to one of the categories designated by order in council (algemene maatregel van bestuur);
...”
b. The Aliens Decree 2000
“Section 3.71
1. An application for a temporary residence permit ... will be rejected if the alien is not in the possession of a valid provisional residence visa.
2. Shall be exempted from the obligation to hold a valid provisional residence visa on the basis of section 17, first paragraph, sub-paragraph g, of the [Aliens] Act, the alien:
...
l. whose expulsion would be contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.
...
4. Our Minister may decide not to apply paragraph 1 if in his opinion its application will result in exceptional hardship (onbillijkheid van overwegende aard).
Section 3.71a
1. An alien has a basic level of knowledge of the Dutch language and of Netherlands society within the meaning of section 16, first paragraph, sub-paragraph h of the [Aliens] Act if he has successfully taken the civic integration examination ... within one year directly preceding the application for a provisional residence visa.
2. The application for a temporary residence permit ... will not be rejected pursuant to section 16, first paragraph, sub-paragraph h of the [Aliens] Act if the alien:
...
c. has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Our Minister of Housing, Districts and Integration (Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie) that he is permanently unable to take the civic integration examination ... owing to a mental or physical obstacle;
...”
Since the events complained of, an additional sub-paragraph has been added to section 3.71a, second paragraph, of the Aliens Decree 2000. It reads as follows:
“d. has not taken the civic integration examination ... successfully and the rejection of the application in the opinion of Our Minister of Housing, Districts and Integration would result in exceptional hardship.”
c. The Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000
Chapter B 1/4.1.1
“Pursuant to section 17, first paragraph of the Aliens Act, a request for a temporary residence permit ... shall not be rejected because of the absence of a provisional residence visa if:
a. the alien has the nationality of one of the countries designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
...
These countries are: Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, the Czech Republic, the Holy See, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Iceland, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland.
...”
Since the events complained of, Estonia and Malta have also been so designated.
3. Relevant domestic case-law
24. On 31 January 2006 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State gave a decision (National Jurisprudence Number (Landelijk Jurisprudentie Nummer), “LJN” AV1445) in which it held as follows:
“2.3 ... There is no ground for the view that the provisional measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) has mistakenly applied Article 26 of the International Convention for the protection of Civil and Political Rights by holding that the difference in treatment on the ground of nationality, stated in the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000 and based on section 17, first paragraph, opening words and sub-paragraph a of the Aliens Act 2000 has been made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to protect the Netherlands economic order and that there is thus a reasonable and objective justification for it.”
25. On 15 July 2008 the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam (LJN BD7189) held as follows:
“8. The Regional Court finds that section 3.13 of the Aliens Decree obliges the grant of a residence permit on grounds of family reunion/family formation (gezinshereniging/gezinsvorming) if – in so far as relevant – the requirements in sections 3.16 up to and including 3.22 of the Aliens Decree are fulfilled. [Section 3.13 of the Aliens Decree] thus concerns an imperative ground.
9. The Regional Court further finds that sections 3.16 up to and including 3.22 of the Aliens Decree do not include the requirement of a successfully taken civic integration examination. In the court’s opinion such a requirement cannot be read into section 3.18 of the Aliens Decree. ...
10. It follows from the above that the imperative formulation of section 3.13 of the Aliens Decree does not provide the discretion to establish a civic integration examination requirement for the issuance of a provisional residence visa for the purpose of family reunion or family formation. ...”
26. On 9 February 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State held that the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ further appeal (LJN BH5761) against the abovementioned decision (see also paragraph 12) was well-founded. It referred to its decision of 2 December 2008 (LJN BG6209), the reasoning of which included, in its relevant part, the following:
“2.1.2. The Regional Court correctly considered that it manifestly follows (onmiskenbaar volgt) from the parliamentary history of section 16, first paragraph, opening words and sub-paragraph h of the Aliens Act ... that the legislator has intended to give effect to the civic integration examination through the provisional residence visa requirement and therefore, with this in view, to establish the power for the Minister to reject [the application for] a provisional residence visa when the alien has not complied with the civic integration examination requirement. Contrary to the considerations of the Regional Court, this consideration also establishes how the legislator has wanted to reach the intended aim – the implementation of the civic integration examination requirement – namely through the establishment and the application of the power to reject the application for a provisional residence visa when this requirement is not fulfilled. This power can be deduced from section 7 of the Sovereign Ordinance [for the abolition of national passports and other provisions concerning national and international passports], read together with section 1, opening words and paragraph h of the Aliens Act and section 3.71a, first paragraph of the Aliens Decree. In this regard special attention is given to the phrase from section 3.71a, first paragraph of the Aliens Decree which reads: ‘when he has successfully taken the civic integration examination ... within one year directly preceding the application for a provisional residence visa’. In view of this system of provisions (samenstel van artikelen) and their drafting history (wordingsgeschiedenis) and also in view of the regular line of conduct that is used by the Minister for the application of these provisions, it must be assumed that he may reject applications such as in issue on the ground that the alien concerned has not fulfilled the civic integration requirement.”
27. According to recent Netherlands case-law in a social-security case, Turkish nationals who seek legal residence in the Netherlands are, as a result of the standstill clause agreed upon at the beginning of the 1970s in the context of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey, exempted from the requirement to pass a civic integration examination even though they are required to obtain a provisional residence visa (see the decision of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) of 16 August 2011 (LJN BR4959), on appeal from a decision of the Roermond Regional Court of 15 October 2010, LJN BO1206, following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 29 April 2010, European Commission v. the Netherlands, supported by Germany (C92/07)). In an immigration case, the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Haarlem, reached a similar finding (decision of 8 June 2011, LJN BQ7656; an appeal against this decision, lodged by the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy (Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel), was withdrawn on 25 August 2011).
28. In addition, the Court notes that a case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerns the requirement, introduced in Germany in 2007, for persons, applying for a visa for the purposes of family reunion with their spouse who is a third-country national, to have a basic knowledge of the German language (Naime Doğan v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C‑138/13)). Advocate General Mengozzi concluded on 30 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:287) that this requirement is compatible with neither the standstill clause mentioned above (paragraph 27) nor with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification.
4. Parliamentary documents
29. The following passage is taken from the drafting history of the Civic Integration (Preparation Abroad) Act (Wet inburgering in het buitenland) (Explanatory Memorandum (Memorie van Toelichting), Lower House of Parliament, no. 27,900, 2003-04 session, no. 3):
“...
3. Aim
Integration of newcomers is a give-and-take (tweezijdig) process. It can be expected of Netherlands society that newcomers are given chances, and of newcomers an effort and a contribution to Netherlands society are expected. Moreover, integration is a lengthy process. Even though the integration of an individual case can be successful, the integration process has to start all over again time after time. Therefore integration on a macro level is constantly set back again. This does not help social cohesion within Netherlands society and the support for the acceptance of new migrants. It follows from the give-and-take process of the integration process that aliens who voluntarily choose to settle permanently in the Netherlands can be expected to prepare for their arrival in the Netherlands abroad. The length of time taken by the integration process in the Netherlands makes it even more important that in relation to the preparations for it they have a basic level of knowledge of the Dutch language and get to know Netherlands society before they arrive in the Netherlands. The integration process will thus proceed more efficiently and more effectively after their arrival in the Netherlands.
...
Additionally, it is of importance that continuing immigration in combination with lagging integration can lead to processes that eventually result in the marginalisation of certain populations in the sense of a decreasing ability to participate in society, diminished chances on the labour market and structural dependence on income-replacing subsidies.
...
Data from the Central Bureau for Statistics (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) shows that throughout 2002 a total of 86,619 non-Netherlands migrants have come to the Netherlands. Around 22% of this number consisted of asylum migrants; around 37% came to the Netherlands for a temporary purpose of stay (among them work and study) and more than 38% of these migrants settled in the Netherlands for family formation or reunion. Family migration in 2002 constituted thus more than a third of total immigration.
An important part of this group of migrants has characteristics that do not favour (ongunstig zijn) good integration in Netherlands society. Among them, most prominently – also in size – is the group of family formers (gezinsvormers) from Turkey and Morocco. Almost half of all family migrants originate from Morocco and Turkey.
...
Furthermore, the new integration requirement, as a condition for admission of newcomers to the Netherlands, works as a selection criterion. Those aliens who have failed to gain a certain basic level of knowledge of the Dutch language and Netherlands society before their arrival in the Netherlands, and who would therefore also experience great problems integrating in the Netherlands, will not be granted permission to settle in the Netherlands. A decrease in the influx of migrants of whom it is predictable that they will be unsuccessful in integrating will also relieve the civic integration problem (inburgeringsprobleem).
...
7. Relation to other provisions, including, international and (forthcoming) community law
...
As regards the principle of equality, as laid down in many international instruments, it is important that the new integration requirement will be applied regardless of origin, race, skin colour, gender, language, religion and the like of the family former or the family member. [The requirement] is in principle applicable to every person who seeks non-temporary stay in the Netherlands unless international obligations or compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature dictate otherwise (daaraan in de weg staan). ... Nationals of a limited number of developed and Western (oriented) third countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United States and Switzerland are ... exempted from the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa since they originate from countries that are similar to European countries from a social-economic, societal and political point of view (sociaal-economisch, maatschappelijk en politiek opzicht) and also for this reason do not lead to undesired and unbridled migration currents to the Netherlands and substantial problems integrating in Netherlands society.
...”
30. On 23 September 2011 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties) sent a letter to Parliament (Lower House of Parliament, no. 31,143, 2011-12 session, no. 89) stating the following:
“I inform you, also on behalf of the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy, on the consequences of the decision of the Central Appeals Tribunal dated 16 August 2011 (LJN BR4959).
The Central Appeals Tribunal ruled that the imposition of a duty to integrate (inburgeringsplicht) on Turkish nationals and their family members, who fall under the scope of the [Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (“the Association Agreement”)], pursuant to the Integration Act (Wet inburgering), is in violation of EU-Turkey association law.
...
It follows from the decision of the Central Appeals Tribunal that Turkish nationals (and their family members) who apply for a provisional residence visa for entry into the Netherlands, pursuant to section 16, first paragraph, sub-paragraph h of the Aliens Act, cannot be compelled to take the civic integration examination. ...”
C. Material from the Council of Europe
31. According to a recent study of the Council of Europe (“Linguistic Integration of adult migrants: Policy and practice”, Draft Report on the 3rd Council of Europe Survey (2014)), the requirement to demonstrate language skills in order to obtain residence is not uncommon in the member states of the Council of Europe. Of the 36 participating countries in the Survey, 23 reported that adult migrants must demonstrate a certain level of proficiency in a or the language of the host country in order to obtain a residence permit (p. 9). Eighteen participating countries reported that they organise a knowledge-of-society programme for migrants seeking a residence permit; attendance is obligatory in seven countries and optional in 12 (p. 12). When the results of the 2009 and 2013 surveys are compared, there is a small increase in the number of countries reporting a language requirement both for residence and for citizenship (p. 14).
32. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has recognised the importance of language skills for the integration of migrants in society, but has also warned against detrimental effects. Thus, in Recommendation (2034 (2014)), the Parliamentary Assembly held:
“1. The Assembly notes that knowledge of a receiving society’s language(s) facilitates the successful integration of migrants. This is the foundation on which integration tests were introduced by a small number of member States and why they have been embraced by a growing number of them. These tests are now applied not only for citizenship, but also for residence and even as a pre-entry requirement, notably for family reunion purposes.”
In its Resolution 1973 (2014), text adopted by the Assembly on 29 January 2014, the Assembly stated:
“4. Encouraging integration through language and other testing is not in itself problematic, and it is a measure that many member States are likely to continue with in one form or another. It is, however, important to be aware of the limitations of such tests and ensure that they contribute to integration and do not become a barrier to it. Rather than promoting testing, offering language courses and possibly obliging migrants to participate in these courses may offer greater advantages and develop their language skills without running the risk of excluding migrants. They may also promote integration as a two-way process, requiring an investment by both the host society and the migrants. Furthermore, testing of knowledge does not, as such, improve language skills and can only be effective if it is offered at the final stage of a language course provided by the host State.
5. The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that current integration tests in Europe are not as effective as they should be. In the first place, the level of knowledge required sometimes exceeds what is reasonably attainable by many immigrants or candidates for immigration, leading to the exclusion of many people who would otherwise have no problems integrating. This raises human rights issues, notably with regard to the right to family life and protection from discrimination. It is particularly problematic in the case of family reunification and when dealing with people who are illiterate or with low levels of education, old people, refugees and others. Furthermore, where integration tests are a barely veiled migration management measure, they inhibit and are detrimental to integration and they should be discontinued.”
COMPLAINT
33. The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention that the exemption of nationals of designated countries, not including her own, from the requirement to take a civic integration examination constituted unlawful discrimination.
QUESTIONS
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her nationality, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8, and/or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy