Nieuw kantoor/New law office

Ik heb een nieuw kantoor opgericht dat volledig in het migratierecht/vreemdelingenrecht gespecialiseerd is. Zie de website:

A new law office fully specialized in Dutch immigration law has been founded. The website is available in different languages:

Agayev Immigration Law Firm


Detention during appeal: The District Court of Haarlem Following the Gnandi judgement of the CJEU, ruled in 2018 that the current regulation does not allow to detain an asylum seeker at the border during the appeal procedure. [1] Detention based on Article 59 cannot be applied to asylum seekers during their asylum procedure or – as a consequence of the Gnandi judgment – while they are waiting for the result of their appeal.

Compatibility of detention on grounds of public order or national security: Dutch courts have referred questions to the CJEU regarding the compatibility of the grounds for detention of asylum seekers with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Council of State referred a preliminary question to the CJEU on the compatibility of detention on grounds of public order or national security, which was affirmed by the Court in J.N. v. Staatsecretariat van Veiligheid en Justitie in 2016. 

J.N. relates to a third country national who entered the Netherlands in 1995. After the rejection of his third asylum claim in 2014, he was ordered to leave the territory of the EU, with a 10-year entry ban. He had been convicted a number of times for criminal offences, mainly for theft, and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fines. In January 2015 he was arrested for theft and for breach of the entry ban and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, during which he made a fourth asylum claim. After serving his sentence he was placed in detention as an asylum seeker under domestic law transposing Article 8(3)e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD), on the basis that this was required for the protection of national security or public order. J.N. challenged his detention. As a result, the matter came before the Raad van State. The Dutch Council of State referred question to the CJEU on the validity of Article 8(3) e) RCD in light of Article 6 of the EU Charter.

The CJEU considered that Article 8(3)(e) was a limitation on the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter (which had the same meaning and scope as Article 5 ECHR).  It emphasised the legitimate interest and objective of detaining persons to protect national security and public order, which also contributed to protecting the rights and freedoms of others, noting that Article 6 also guaranteed the right to security.

The Court considered that there were a number of limitations which strictly regulated the use of detention under Article 8(3)(e). The court stated that detention could only be imposed in the following: – when ‘required’ to protect national security and public order: – detention grounds must be laid down in national law; – Article 8(1) prevents detention solely on the ground of having lodged an application for international protection; -and Article 8(2) requires detention to be ordered only where necessary, on the basis of an individualised assessment, and where no less coercive measures could be effectively applied. Further limitations and procedural safeguards are set out in Article 9.

The CJEU concluded that the EU legislature had struck the correct balance between the right to liberty of the applicant and the requirements of protection national security and public order. Detention in this case was proportionate given the offences committed by J.N. and that he had been issued an entry ban of over 5 years, meaning that national authorities had already deemed his individual behaviour to constitute a threat to public order, public safety or public security according to Article 11 of the Return Directive.

The effectiveness of the objectives pursued by the Return Directive required that if return procedures were suspended due to the lodging of application for international being lodged, they should be continued from the point of interruption after such application is dismissed, rather than starting return proceedings again. With regard to the ECtHR ruling in Nabil v. Hungary, the CJEU found that this judgment did not rule out the possibility for a Member State to detain a third country national against whom a return decision with an entry ban had already been taken prior to his/her lodging an application for international protection. Pending asylum proceedings did not preclude that detention was for the purpose of deportation, as a rejection could lead to implementation of a deportation order that had already been ordered, so return proceedings were still ‘in progress’ according to Article 5(1) f) ECHR.

As such Article 8(3) e) RCD was considered to be valid in the light of Article 6 of the Charter. After the CJEU ruling, the Council of State ruled in the same case that, while Article 59b(d) of the Aliens Act is valid, the public order or national security ground may only be fulfilled where there is a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.” The J.N. ruling also gave rise to a change of jurisprudence of the Council of State: a subsequent asylum application only suspends the return decision rather than annulling it. 

Detention and Dublin transfer: Relating to detention of asylum seekers subject to a transfer under the Dublin Regulation under Article 59a of the Aliens Act, there must be a concrete indication that the asylum seeker can be transferred based on the Dublin Regulation. Asylum seekers in Dublin procedures are not systematically detained but they may be detained when there is a significant risk of absconding. According to Article 5.1b(2) of the Aliens Decree, a “significant risk” is demonstrated in the context of the Dublin Regulation when at least two grounds for detention are applicable, of which at least one is “severe”. The “severe” grounds can be found in Article 5.1b(3) of the Aliens Decree, while the “light” grounds are set out in Article 5.1b(4). A significant risk of absconding may already be determined, for example, when the person concerned has not entered the Netherlands lawfully (a “severe” ground) and does not possess sufficient resources (“light” ground).

Compatibility of the grounds of identity / nationality: A question on the compatibility of the grounds of identity / nationality and acquisition of information necessary for the assessment of the application was referred by the Hague District Court, and the CJEU clarified in K. v. Staatsecretariat van Veiligheid en Justitie that their application was in line with the Charter.

On 14 September 2017, the CJEU ruled in case C-18/16 K., which concerned the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(2)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It concurred with the Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston that the proper interpretation of these provisions is in line with the safeguards under Article 6 CFR.

The CJEU found that the detention of an applicant in order to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Common European Asylum System, namely to contribute to preventing secondary movements. Moreover, under that Directive, detention is subject to compliance with a series of conditions and is only justified under a circumscribed framework.  Therefore, the CJEU concluded that the EU legislature struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to liberty and, on the other, the requirements relating to the identification of that applicant which are necessary to the functioning of the Common European Asylum System. Finally, the Court found that the request by the referring Dutch court does not contain elements allowing it to be concluded that the facts at issue are covered by Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, since the applicant in the main proceedings was not subject to a return decision.

Even prior to the case, the Council of State had found that the CJEU findings in J.N. were also applicable to the ground for detention to determine the main elements of the claim, concluding that it is also valid. 


[1] Read more about the Gnandi judgment:

Gezinsvorming en gezinshereniging

Om uw partner vanuit het buitenland naar Nederland te kunnen halen moet er aan enkele voorwaarden worden voldaan. De meeste vreemdelingen van buiten de Europese Unie (EU) moeten beschikken over een machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf (MVV). Dit is een visum dat de vreemdeling het recht geeft om zich naar Nederland te begeven en zich hier te vestigen voor het doel waarvoor het visum afgegeven is. Er zijn landen waarvan de burgers vrijgesteld zijn van de zogenaamde mvv-plicht: dit zijn – buiten de EU-lidstaten – Zwitserland, Ijsland, Noordwegen, Liechtenstein, Verenigde Staten van Amerika, Australie, Nieuw-Zeeland, Canada, Japan en Zuid-Korea. Daarnaast hoeft de echtgeno(o)t(e) van een Turkse werknemer met legaal verblijf in Nederland niet over een mvv te beschikken als er voldaan wordt aan de andere materiele eisen.    
Gezien het belang van de MVV en de veelheid papierwerk dat om de hoek komt kijken, is het belangrijk om een deskundige in te schakelen. Het is van belang om de juiste vereiste documenten te overleggen en een zo volledig mogelijke aanvraag in te dienen. 
De belangrijkste voorwaarden zijn:

1. Basisexamen buitenland. Iedere aanvrager in de leeftijdscategorie 18 – 66 (AOW-gerechtigde leeftijd) dient het inburgeringsexamen af te leggen. Het examen wordt afgelegd bij de Nederlandse ambassade in het land van herkomst of in een buurland. Enkele groepen zijn uitgezonderd:

– ouders van kinderen met de Nederlandse nationaliteit: dit betreft het zogenaamde Chavez-arrest;
– mensen met de Turkse nationaliteit (verwacht wordt dat deze uitzondering op 1 juli 2021 afgeschaft zal worden waardoor Turkse gezinsherenigers ook een examen zullen moeten afleggen);

– gezinsleden van statushouders/mensen met een asielstatus; 
– gezinsleden van referenten met de nationaliteit van een EU-lidstaat niet zijnde een Nederlander (wel moet de EU-burger in Nederland ingeschreven staan en over voldoende middelen beschikken);

– mensen met de Surinaamse nationaliteit die lager onderwijs in de Nederlandse taal in Suriname hebben gevolgd;

Onder omstandigheden is ontheffing mogelijk, bijvoorbeeld om medische redenen.

2. Inkomenseis. 

De referent – degene die in Nederland verblijft – moet over voldoende inkomen beschikken om zijn partner uit het buitenland naar Nederland te kunnen halen. 

Als werknemer voldoet u aan de inkomenseis als u een arbeidscontract heeft dat minstens 12 maanden geldig is op het moment dat de aanvraag wordt ingediend. Als dat niet het geval is, dan kan er ‘terug wordt gekeken’: als u nog een arbeidsovereenkomst heeft die nog 7 maanden nog te lopen heeft, dan kunt u nog steeds aan de eis voldoen als u kunt aantonen dat u over de 12 maanden voorafgaand aan de aanvraag gemiddeld genomen voldoende heeft verdiend. 

Het is daarnaast van belang dat de hoogte van uw salaris voldoet aan de eisen.  De normbedragen worden jaarlijks aangepast. Voor de meest actuele normbedragen kunt u terecht bij de website van de IND:

Als u een ondernemer/ZZPer bent, dan kijkt de IND of u over de afgelopen 18 maanden gemiddeld genomen het normbedrag verdiend heeft.

Als u blijvend en duurzaam arbeidsongeschikt bent (oude WAO, Wajong & IVA) dan voldoet u ook aan de inkomenseis. 

Mensen met een WGA-uitkering en een bijstandsuitkering komen helaas niet in aanmerking voor de gezinshereniging. Voor bijstandsgerechtigden is er nog een mogelijkheid: als de bijstandsgerechtigde kan aantonen dat hij enkele jaren vrijgesteld is van arbeidsinschakeling en dat het ook voor het komend jaar gezien de medische toestand niet verwacht kan worden dat hij in staat zal zijn om te werken.
Aangezien gezinshereniging een terrein is dat onder het EU-recht valt, heeft de EU een richtlijn opgesteld over de manier waarop de lidstaten om moeten gaan met de aanvragen voor gezinshereniging: de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn. O.a. in het Chakroun-arrest heeft het Hof van Justitie van de EU – de hoogste rechtbank van de EU – besloten dat de lidstaten soepel moeten omgaan met aanvragen voor gezinshereniging en  de aanvragen in de regel moeten toewijzen. Het feit dat iemand niet onmiddellijk aan de inkomenseis voldoet mag dus bijvoorbeeld niet direct tot een negatief besluit leiden: er zijn mensen die een lager inkomen hebben, maar ook bijvoorbeeld lage vaste lasten. De IND moet hier rekening mee houden.  Het is van belang dat deze aspecten goed onderbouwd worden. 

3. Echtheid relatie
De (huwelijks)relatie moet duurzaam en exclusief zijn. Dit houdt o.a. in dat er geen sprake mag zijn van een polygaam huwelijk. Het hebben aangaan van een huwelijk is geen vereiste. Indien er sprake is van een huwelijk moet er een gelegaliseerde huwelijksakte worden meegestuurd met de aanvraag. Als er geen sprake is van een huwelijk moet er een gelegaliseerde ongehuwdakte worden overgelegd.

Withdrawal of residence permits due to ‘danger to public order’

The “sliding scale” in Dutch law 

If a foreigner commits a crime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) can withdraw his or her residence permit due to ‘danger to public order’. In order to determine whether a final judgment has implications on lawful residence in the Netherlands the so-called principle of the sliding scale (glijdende schaal) from the Aliens Decree (Section 3:86) is used.[1]

According to the principle of the sliding scale there is a correlation between the length of the sentence imposed and the duration of lawful residence in the Netherlands. The longer a foreigner lawfully resides in the Netherlands, the more severe the punishment should be in order to be able to terminate lawful residency. Even if the IND intends not to renew a residence permit or to impose an entry ban, reference can be made to the sliding scale. If the court imposes a penalty that exceeds the norms in the sliding scale, that may be a reason for the IND to withdraw the residence permit.

The duration of lawful residence and the gravity of the punishment are the two cornerstones of the sliding scale. In short, the sliding scale is a table in which the amount of the penalty imposed and the duration of the legal stay in the Netherlands are weighed against each other.

The IND uses three sliding scales:

  • The first scale relates to offenses with a criminal threat of a minimum of three and a maximum of six years in prison;
  • The second scale relates to offenses with a criminal threat of more than six years in prison;
  • The third scale applies if the foreign national has been convicted of a crime at least three times.
Duration of stayPenalty measure (scale 1)Penalty measure (scale 2)Penalty measure (scale 3)
less than 3 years:1 day1 day1 day
at least 3 years but less than 4 years:5 months4 months and 2 weeks4 months
at least 4 years but less than 5 years:7 months6 months5 months
at least 5 years but less than 6 years:15 months12 months6 months
at least 6 years but less than 7 years:18 months15 months7 months
at least 7 years but less than 8 years:22 months18 months8 months
at least 8 years but less than 9 years:27 months22 months and 2 weeks9 months
at least 9 years but less than 10 years:33 months27 months10 months
at least 10 years but less than 15 years:40 months30 months12 months
at least 15 years:65 months48 months14 months

Different rules

  • If the foreigner has been lawfully resident in the Netherlands for less than three years or more than ten years, different rules apply. 
  • If the foreigner has a right of residence for less than three years, offenses with a criminal threat of two years or more are also counted.
  • If the foreigner has a right of residence for more than ten years, not all offenses may be included in full in the assessment. Only offenses from the Opium Act with a criminal threat of at least six years and offenses as referred to in Article 22b of the Criminal Code count. This concerns offenses with a criminal threat of at least six years, while the offense must also have seriously infringed on the ‘physical integrity of the victim’.
  • Regarding the application of the sliding scale, there is only legitimate residence in the Netherlands during the period in which the foreigner is actually in possession of a residence permit. Among other things, the period in which he/she was awaiting a decision on his/her application for residence, or the period in which she/he was awaiting a decision from the judge, are not included in determining the duration of your lawful stay in the Netherlands.

Different rules for specific groups:

Separate rules apply to many specific groups of foreign nationals, including those for: 

  • People who are the direct family of a national of an EU country;
  • Minors with one Dutch parent living in the Netherlands;
  • People who reside in the Netherlands under the restriction of staying with a family member;
  • Foreign nationals with an EU residence permit for long-term residents;
  • Turkish aliens who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of agreements between Turkey and the European Union.

Old convictions 

If the IND wants to impose a measure solely on the basis of old convictions, older, more flexible standards may apply. The sliding scale has been changed several times. The last major change was implemented on 1 July 2012. If the IND objects to your offenses prior to 1 July 2012, while after 1 July 2012 you have no longer come into contact with the law, the old standard from before 1 July 2012 applies. This can be of great importance. This standard is considerably more flexible. Moreover, on the basis of this standard, the right of residence cannot be terminated after a lawful stay of twenty years. 

Which penalties count?

Only the unconditional part of the prison sentence imposed by the judge is taken into account. In addition, youth detentions, community service punishments, and measures such as TBS[2], ISD[3] or placement in a (youth) institution can also be taken into account in the assessment. Sometimes convictions abroad are also involved in decision-making.

Lawyer in case of dispute with IND

What to do if the IND wants to withdraw your residence permit or does not want to renew it? Is your residence permit in danger?

The IND can not simply withdraw a residence permit. This is preceded by a procedure. You will first receive an intention in which the IND explains that they intend to withdraw your residence permit and the reasons for this. You can then submit a written opinion within a certain period (often four weeks). In this way you can respond to the intention of the IND. You can also explain your personal circumstances, because the IND is often not aware of this (and has not yet taken this into account). It is then up to the IND to take a decision. The IND can do two things: do not implement the intention, or decide to withdraw your permit.

In many cases, you can then lodge an objection, after which you may be able to go to court. This often also applies in the case of the imposition of an entry ban.

If you want to prepare and submit an opinion or objection, then you should contact an immigration lawyer who will request your complete file from the IND. This lawyer knows exactly which aspects of your story are important and is aware of the latest regulations. Depending on your income, you may also be eligible for funded legal aid. The majority of the costs will then be reimbursed.

Examples of which scale would apply: 

  1. Mrs. A from Iraq has had a residence permit in the Netherlands since March 2013. On April 2018, Mrs. A will be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for money laundering. The IND wants to revoke Mrs. A’s residence permit because of this conviction. Is Mrs. A’s residence permit in danger?

The answer is negative. Money laundering can be punished by a maximum of six years in prison. The first sliding scale therefore applies. Mrs. A has been lawfully in the Netherlands for more than five years and less than six years at the time of the conviction. Mrs A’s residence permit is not endangered because his sentence is less than 15 months of unconditional imprisonment.

  • Mrs. B from Sudan has had a residence permit since 1 March 2012. She is married to a Dutch citizen, her child is of Dutch nationality, and she is receiving medical treatment in the Netherlands. In 2019, she was convicted five times for theft with burglary, with a total of eleven months of unconditional imprisonment being imposed. The IND wants to revoke Mrs. B’s permit because of the five convictions. Is his residence permit in danger?

The answer would be positive. Theft with burglary is punished with a maximum of six years in prison. Normally the first sliding scale applies, but in this case Mrs. B has been convicted five times. In that case, the IND can refer to the third sliding scale. Mrs. B. has been in the Netherlands for more than seven and less than eight years during the last conviction. Mrs. B’s residence permit is in danger because his total prison sentence is higher than eight months.

Weighing of interests: However, in the above-mentioned case the IND must always weigh up the interests of the alien on the one hand and the interests of the state on the other. The main focus is on the family and private life that the foreign national has built up in the Netherlands. This is stated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The IND has to demonstrate in every case that the measure is proportional and balance it against the personal consequences for the foreign national, some of whom have been in the Netherlands for several years and they have families in the country. 

[1] Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Vb 2000)

[2] TBS is a treatment measure that the court imposes on people who have committed serious crimes and suffer from a psychiatric illness or disorder. This disorder influences their behaviour to a greater or lesser extent. The judge therefore does not hold them fully responsible for their actions.

[3] The measure taken in an institution for systematic offenders, also known as the ISD measure


Return, removal and entry ban (Policy, jurisprudence and criminal law)

Member States have responded to the immigration crisis to varying degrees, not only by implementing various policies but also by including national criminal law to reduce unwanted immigration. 

            This article, firstly, intends to explain the “return decision” in the Netherlands. Secondly, it examines how criminal law can be used in removal of a third-country nationals from the European law and European jurisprudence perspective. 

Return decision

A return decision (terugkeerbesluit or TKB) is a written declaration or court ruling. It states that a third-country national is not (no longer) lawfully resident in the Netherlands. This also means that he/she will have to leave the Netherlands. This is called an obligation to return. A return decision cannot be imposed on an EU/EEU or Swiss citizen.

The return decision states the time frame within which the third-country national has to leave the Netherlands. The departure period is determined on a case-by-case basis. A choice can be made to impose an immediate obligation to leave the country combined with an entry ban.

Return decision as a result of unlawful residence

A third-country national may no longer have lawful residence in the Netherlands because their temporary residence permit in the Netherlands that has expired or their application has been rejected. As a result, the third-country national has to leave the Netherlands as soon as possible. If they fail to do so on their own, the AVIM (Aliens Police) or the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee can then impose a return decision.

The following situations form an exception to this rule:

  • The third-country national has submitted an application to extend or change his/her residence permit on time. And he/she is allowed to stay in the Netherlands while this application is processed.
  • The third-country national has submitted an application for review or an appeal against a rejection of a previous application for a residence permit. And he/she is allowed to await this application in the Netherlands.

Return decision resulting from the rejection of a residence application

If the application for a residence permit has been rejected, it is given in the form of a letter: the formal decision. This decision is also a return decision. In that case, the third-country national is given a certain time frame within which he/she has to leave the Netherlands (the departure period). The departure period is established on a case-by-case basis. The standard period is 28 days (4 weeks). It may also be that the third-country national is not given a departure period (a so-called 0-day period). If this is the case, the third-country national has to leave the Netherlands immediately.

Use of criminal law

Use of criminal law in reducing or combatting unwanted immigration can create tensions with existing European agreements. These agreements mean that the foreign national must first go through the asylum or admission procedure. If it is determined that this has not been successfully completed, then the phases from the Return Directive will be completed and only then can criminal sanctions (such as a fine or imprisonment) be applied.

Removal of third-country nationals: The Return Directive

The return and removal of aliens have for a long time been the exclusive responsibility of the national Member State. However, the need to cooperate at European level in the field of return and removal is increasingly recognized. The 2008 Return Directive is one of the instruments for this purpose.[1] The directive is a compromise between the European Parliament and the EU Member States to retain their national policies as much as possible but also to align the entire asylum and immigration policy of the European Union. The specific expulsion directive must put an end to the often arbitrary and non-binding expulsion policies of individual EU Member States. This regulation also explicitly takes into account human rights and the fundamental freedoms of illegal immigrants in Europe. 

The ultimate aim of the Return Directive is for third-country nationals to return to a third country. The emphasis is on (voluntary) departure. In the Return Directive, a number of instruments have been given to Member States to implement the departure of the illegal third-country national:

  • voluntary departure period;
  • return decision;
  • entry ban; and
  • detention

The Return Directive provides for a gradual increase in the measures to be taken, starting with the measure that leaves the person most freedom, namely the granting of a period for his voluntary departure, and ending with the measures that limit him most, namely detention in a specialized centre.

National use of criminal law in immigration

Neither the Return Directive nor any other EU legal instrument prevents Member States from criminalizing illegal entry and / or illegal residence under national criminal law. The findings of the European Commission show that in most Member States, in different ways, it is established by law that illegal entry and / or illegal stay is punishable. Ccriminal law is used to achieve policy goals in immigration law and vice versa. The Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: The Court) has clarified in a series of judgments the use of criminal law by the Member States in the context of the Return Directive. Member States may adopt criminal measures for violations of immigration rules, provided that those measures do not conflict with the effectiveness of the Return Directive.[2]

General criminalization of illegal residence is not possible

Imposing a prison sentence on an illegal third-country national residing in the territory solely because he did not comply with an order to leave the national territory is contrary to the Directive. Making the stay as a criminal offense in itself and illegally entering and staying is contrary to the case law of the Court. The illegal stay is not criminalised. This means that the asylum or admission procedure must first be completed. If this was not successful for the foreign national, the Return Directive procedure must be followed and only then may the Member State can impose criminal sanctions on the illegal foreign national within or after the Return Directive procedure. The case law of the Court has given rise to a large number of legislative changes in a number of Member States. For example, in Affum, the Court ruled on whether France was allowed to impose a prison sentence on an illegal foreign national who was in transit in a Belgian bus to London and was intercepted at the Channel Tunnel because of illegal entry into France.[3] According to the Court, France cannot impose imprisonment for illegal entry since the return procedure from the Return Directive had not yet been completed.

Possibilities within the EU to impose criminal sanctions on third-country nationals

The imposition of a fine on the basis of national criminal law for illegal residence is permitted.[4] However, national legislation which offers the possibility of either imposing a fine or ordering expulsion is not allowed, as this would undermine the effectiveness of the directive: i.e. the departure of the third-country national.[5] The CJEU states that this replacement delays the return of the illegal third-country national from the EU if he/she chooses to pay a fine and therefore to stay in the Member State while his/her removal must take precedence. The Member States are required, under their duty of loyalty and the requirements of effectiveness referred to in the directive, to carry out the removal as soon as possible. Where a fine is replaced by a home detention order, the Court finds that that order, imposed in the course of the return procedure, does not help to achieve the physical transportation of an illegally staying third-country national out of the Member State concerned. On the contrary, that home detention order may delay and impede measures such as deportation and forced return by air.

There are only three situations where the Member State has the option of imposing criminal sanctions (such as imprisonment or house arrest) on the illegal third-country national: 

  1. when a third-country national, without a valid reason for not returning and having completed the procedure under the Return Directive, resides illegally in the territory of the Member State concerned.[6]
  2. when an illegally staying third-country national has re-entered the territory of this state in violation of a re-entry ban (resulting from the application of the Return Directive)[7]
  3. when other offenses are committed that are not related to illegal entry (for example, committing an offense such as theft), even in situations where the said return procedure has not yet been fully completed.[8]

[1] Directive 2008/115/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

[2] CJEU, 28 April 2011, C-61/11, El Dridi; CJEU 6 December 2011, C-329/11, Achughbabian; CJEU 6 December 2012, C-430/11, Sagor; CJEU 1 October 2015, C-290/14, Celaj; CJEU 7 June 2016, C-47/15, Affum.

[3] CJEU 7 June 2016, C-47/15, Affum

[4] CJEU 6 December 2012, C-430/11, Sagor. 

[5] El Dridi [2011], paragraph 55, and Achughbabian [2011], paragraph 39 and CJEU 23 April 2015, C-38/14, Zaizoune

[6] CJEU, Achughbabian [2011], para 50 and CJEU 7 June 2016, C-47/15, Affum, para. 54.

[7] CJEU 1 October 2015, C-290/14, Celaj and CJEU, Affum[2016], para.64.

[8] CJEU, Affum [2016], para. 65. 


Pronouncement of undesirability (ongewenstverklaring)

In the Netherlands the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) is entitled, on behalf of the State Secretary for Justice, to pronounce a third-country national undesirable pursuant to Article 67 of the Aliens Act 2000. A pronouncement of undesirability (exclusion order) is an (administrative) measure for the purpose of preventing third-country nationals who are not or are no longer permitted to stay in the Netherlands from entering or remaining in the country. In most cases, this concerns third-country nationals who have committed an offence or are a threat or risk to public order or national security. 

When assessing whether a third-country national will be pronounced undesirable the IND balances all interests concerned. The national interest (public order and national security) and the third-country national’s own personal and (possibly) family interests are considered. The pronouncement of undesirability is imposed by the IND. This is done as a decision. This decision is issued to the third-country national by the police. This will be accompanied by a leaflet with information about the pronouncement of undesirability. If it is not possible to issue the decision in person, pronouncement of undesirability will then in any event be published in the Government Gazette.

The consequences of a pronouncement of undesirability

The pronouncement of undesirability has immediate effect. The third-country national who has been pronounced undesirable, has to leave the Netherlands immediately (personal obligation to leave the country), after which he/she is no longer allowed to enter or stay in the Netherlands.By not leaving the Netherlands or entering the Netherlands when the third-country national has been pronounced undesirable, he/she would be breaking the law. By doing so, they can be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum period of 6 months. After having served the prison sentence, the third-country national can be expelled from the Netherlands. The personal details of the third-country national are entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the event of a pronouncement of undesirability.  This means that the third-country national cannot access any of the Schengen countries as long as his/her pronouncement of undesirability is in effect. Since the pronouncement of undesirability aims to ban certain foreign nationals from the Netherlands, an alert is entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for refusal of entry. This means that for the duration of the pronouncement of undesirability the foreign national cannot access Schengen Area countries. 

Appeal against the pronouncement of undesirability

A foreign national may lodge an application for review in respect of a pronouncement of undesirability. The foreign national shall not, however, be permitted to stay in the Netherlands pending the outcome of such an application. If he/she has officially been pronounced undesirable and has left the Netherlands, then he/she can submit a written request to have the pronouncement of undesirability lifted. Any foreign national who stays in the Netherlands whilst he or she is aware or may reasonably assume that he or she has been pronounced undesirable, is guilty of an offence pursuant to Article 197 of the Penal Code and may be sentenced to a maximum of six months’ imprisonment.


Overschrijding termijn nareis vanwege het Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland

De IND hanteerde een termijn een van drie  maanden voor de indiening van de aanvraag voor de gezinshereniging in het kader van de nareis. Binnen drie maanden nadat de asielzoeker een asielstatus krijgt – en dus statushouder wordt – moest hij/zij de aanvraag indienen. De termijnoverschrijding werd zelden verschoonbaar geacht. Over de vraag of de IND een aanvraag om gezinshereniging mag afwijzen om de enkele reden dat die aanvraag buiten de termijn van drie maanden is ingediend heeft de Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State zogenaamde prejudiciële vragen gesteld aan het Europees Hof van Justitie. (

De rechtbank bepaalt in deze uitspraak dat onze cliënt aangetoond heeft dat hij al het mogelijk deed om met zijn dochter herenigd te worden. Hij heeft zich tijdig tot het VluchtelingenWerk gewend. Verder sprak hij geen Nederlands en kende hij het systeem niet. De rechtbank vindt dat van onze cliënt niet kan worden verlangd dat hij een advocaat heeft benaderd voor de aanvraag. Daarnaast heeft hij direct na de beleidswijziging de aanvraag alsnog ingediend. De rechtbank vindt dus dat het niet de fout van onze cliënt is dat de aanvraag te laat is ingediend. Oftewel: de termijnoverschrijding is volgens de rechtbank verschoonbaar. De rechtbank draagt de IND op om opnieuw een beslissing te nemen.


De uitspraak vindt u hieronder:


P.S.1: het is een wat ouder artikel dat aanvankelijk verloren was en later gevonden is.

P.S.2: de prejudiciële vragen zijn inmiddels beantwoord.

Chavez-arrest & stiefouders

Dat de ouder van een kind met de Nederlandse nationaliteit het verblijfsrecht heeft indien hij kan aantonen dat hij zorgtaken verricht ten aanzien van het kind. Daarnaast moet de ouder aantonen dat het kind zodanig afhankelijk is van de ouder dat bij het vertrek van de ouder naar het land van herkomst ook het kind gedwongen wordt om te vertrekken. Ten aanzien van jonge minderjarigen die altijd al voor het kind hebben gezorgd levert het in de praktijk bijna geen problemen op. De afhankelijkheidsverhouding wordt dan vaak aangenomen.

Chavez-arrest kan echter onder omstandigheden ook van toepassing zijn op anderen dan de biologische ouders van een kind. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan grootouders en stiefouders. In een recente zaak van ons kantoor deed een stiefmoeder een beroep op het Chavez-arrest. De ouders van het kind waren gescheiden en de vader was getrouwd met client. De  biologische moeder van het kind is in beeld, maar is niet in staat om voor het kind te zorgen. Vandaar dat het kind bij de vader verblijf. De vader heeft echter een eigen onderneming en onregelmatige werktijden.

De IND was aanvankelijk van mening dat de stiefmoeder helemaal niet kon aantonen dat er sprake was van zorgtaken ten aanzien van het kind. Hierdoor kwam men niet eens aan de vraag of er ook sprake was van een afhankelijkheidsverhouding. Later nam de IND aan dat er wel degelijk sprake was van zorgtaken, maar werd de afhankelijkheidsverhouding niet aangenomen.

De vraag aan de rechtbank was of de beslissing van de IND juist was. De rechtbank vindt de werkwijze van de IND niet correct. De rechtbank is van mening dat de stiefmoeder voldoende bewijsmateriaal had overgelegd om haar verhaal te ondersteunen. De IND had nader onderzoek moeten instellen naar het bewijsmateriaal. Ook moest de IND een hoorzitting houden. Omdat dit niet gebeurd was, moet de IND alsnog een onderzoek verrichten naar de mate van afhankelijkheid van het kind van zijn stiefmoeder.

Zie de website van Sarikas & Agayev Advocaten voor het gehele artikel:

Chavez-arrest & stiefouders


Samenwonen op hetzelfde BRP-adres geen vereiste voor voortzetting verblijf bij partner

Als iemand een verblijfsvergunning heeft op basis van een relatie dan is de verblijfsvergunning verleend onder de voorwaarde dat de relatie voortduurt. Als het later blijkt dat de relatie verbroken is, zal de IND de verblijfsvergunning intrekken, vaak met terugwerkende kracht.

Het was in de regel zo dat de IND als eerste nagaat of de betrokkenen (nog steeds) op hetzelfde adres ingeschreven staan. Als dat niet het geval was, dan was dat voor de IND een indicatie dat de relatie verbroken was. Geen BRP-inschrijving betekende geen ‘deugdelijk bewezen duurzame relatie”. De vraag was of deze werkwijze in overeenstemming was met de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn.  De Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State – de hoogste rechter als het om vreemdelingenzaken gaat –  heeft hierover uitsluitsel gegeven.

De Afdeling beantwoordt de vraag met een verwijzing naar een oud arrest van het Hof van Justitie van de EU – de ‘rechtbank’ van de EU – namelijk het Diatta-arrest uit 1985 en eigen jurisprudentie uit het verleden: ‘Zoals de Afdeling eerder heeft overwogen (uitspraak van 20 februari 2017, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:455), valt uit de definitie van gezinshereniging in artikel 2, aanhef en onder d, van de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn niet op te maken dat om voor gezinshereniging in aanmerking te komen daadwerkelijk sprake moet zijn geweest van samenwoning.’ (r.o. 4).

Dit betekent natuurlijk niet dat aan het niet-samenwonen helemaal geen waarde moet worden gehecht: het kan nog steeds een indicatie zijn dat een relatie verbroken is. Het mag echter niet als zelfstandige grond dienen om een verblijfsvergunning in te trekken. Het kan een indicatie vormen voor de IND om nader onderzoek te verrichten naar de vraag of de relatie nog bestaat. Maar als het blijkt dat betrokkenen ondanks het feit dat zij niet op hetzelfde BRP-adres ingeschreven staan nog steeds relatie hebben, dan mag de verblijfsvergunning niet ingetrokken worden.

Zie voor de uitspraak van de Afdeling:


Lees het artikel op:

Aanvullende prejudiciële vraag: weigering visum vanwege bezwaar lidstaat

Je wilt je in Nederland wonende neef bezoeken en dient een visumaanvraag in. Je krijgt een visumweigering. Een niet nader genoemde EU-lidstaat heeft zonder opgaaf van redenen bezwaar gemaakt tegen de visumverlening.

De visumweigering is gebaseerd op artikel 32, eerste lid, aanhef en onder a), sub vi), van de Visumcode, omdat één of meer lidstaten bezwaar tegen afgifte van het visum heeft of hebben gemaakt.  Omdat het niet bekend is welk land bezwaar maakt is het voor de visumaanvrager onmogelijk om het besluit aan te vechten. Nederland weigert op zijn beurt bekend te maken welk land bezwaar maakt. De visumaanvrager is van mening dat hij zich niet goed kan verdedigen nu hij niet weet waartegen hij zich moet verdedigen.

De visumaanvrager had in Nederland bezwaar ingesteld. Omdat het bezwaar ongegrond was verklaard had hij beroep ingesteld bij de rechtbank. De rechtbank werd aanvankelijk verzocht om de zaak aan te houden omdat de rechtbank in Haarlem in een vergelijkbare zaak al prejudiciële vragen had gesteld (C-225/19 en C-226/19, In die zaken was het echter bekend welke lidstaat bezwaar had gemaakt tegen de visumverlening. En dat was het verschil tussen de Haarlemse zaak en de onderhavige zaak. Om die reden heeft de rechtbank in Amsterdam besloten om een aanvullende prejudiciële vraag te stellen:

‘Wordt de beantwoording van prejudiciële vragen in de zaken bij het Hof geregistreerd onder de nummers C‑225/19 en C-226/19, anders, indien niet bekend wordt gemaakt of bekend is geworden wat het land is dat bij de voorafgaande raadpleging als bedoeld in artikel 22 van de Visumcode bezwaar heeft gemaakt tegen de afgifte van een visum aan de aanvrager?’

Zie voor de verwijzingsuitspraak:

Wordt vervolgd!



Lees het artikel op de website van Sarikas & Agayev Advocaten: