Background Briefing

The Operation of the Integration Abroad Act

The Integration Abroad Act requires some foreign nationals31 wishing to migrate to the Netherlands for marriage (family formation) or to join family members living in the Netherlands (family reunification) to pass an integration test before entering the country. The test is in addition to the integration exam that most non-EU/EEA nationals seeking long-term residence in the Netherlands are required to take.

The Integration Abroad Act (Wet inburgering in het buitenland, Wib), was passed on December 22, 2005 and entered into force on March 15, 2006.32 According to the act’s preparatory documents, its declared objective is to stimulate the integration of migrant communities.33

Some foreign nationals who wish to enter the Netherlands for a prolonged purpose must first obtain an authorization for temporary residence (known as “MVV,” Machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf).

The act introduced a new requirement to obtain an MVV, in that the applicant must pass an exam. This requirement applies in practice to three categories of person: 1) foreign nationals who wish to form a family (e.g. marry) with someone in the Netherlands; 2) foreign nationals seeking to be reunited with family members already living in the Netherlands, and 3) religious leaders coming to the Netherlands for employment, such as imams or preachers.

Those who require an MVV to enter the Netherlands for other employment purposes do not need to take the exam.34 Surinamese nationals who have completed at least primary education in the Dutch language in Suriname or the Netherlands are also exempt, even if they are seeking to enter for a family purpose.35

Citizens of EU/EEA states, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, and the US do not require an MVV to enter the Netherlands, and do not need to take the overseas integration test. EU/EEA nationals are exempted because under EU law the Netherlands cannot impose such restrictions.36 The test also applies to family members of Dutch citizens.

Under the new requirement applicants must demonstrate basic knowledge of the Dutch language and basic concepts of Dutch society before they enter the Netherlands. This knowledge is tested by a “compulsory basic civic integration exam” administered in Dutch, at a Dutch embassy or consulate general in the applicant’s country of residence. It is the responsibility of the applicant to prepare him/herself for the examination.

The person taking the exam talks by telephone to a computer. The score is calculated automatically by the computer. Prior to November 2007, the score was double-checked by human examiners. If the examination is passed, the migrant can apply for an MVV.37  If the candidate fails the test, the Dutch authorities will not consider an application for an MVV and the person will have to take the exam again.

The Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration confirmed in a letter to Human Rights Watch that there is no legal remedy against an assessment of having failed the test38 but that the candidate would be free to take the test again if they paid the fee again.39 Applicants can appeal, however, against a refusal of their application for an MVV.40

High costs related to the exam include the examination fee of €350 (each time the test is taken), the costs for preparing independently for the test (for example, an optional examination package, including a video/DVD available in six and 14 languages respectively, which can be purchased for about €64, or the costs of telephoning the Netherlands for Dutch language practice),41 and transportation costs to the Dutch embassy (in some cases located in a neighboring country). As result it can in fact be a considerable challenge for some applicants to take the exam.

The Dutch government is planning to review the Integration Abroad Act, starting in April 2008 with results expected by spring 2009.42

Nationals of “Western” Countries Exempt from Test

Potential family migrants from “western” countries do not have to take the overseas integration test under Dutch law.43 These countries are: EU and EEA states, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, the Vatican, and the US.

At the time of the act’s introduction, the then-minister for immigration and integration argued that the exemption made sense because the countries in question are “similar” to the Netherlands in socio-economic and political development. The government argued that exempting nationals of these countries from the requirement of an MVV and therefore the test would not therefore lead to “unwanted and unbridled immigration and essential problems with integration in Dutch society.”44 This suggested that reducing immigration, and not just achieving integration, was actually a main reason for the legislation.

When Human Rights Watch asked the current government to comment on the rationale for exempting some non-EU/EEA nationals from taking the overseas integration test, the minister for housing, communities and integration referred first to pragmatic reasons for linking this integration requirement of the Integration Abroad Act with the requirement of an MVV. This allows the government to determine whether the new requirement has been met before the foreign national arrives in the Netherlands. These specific non-EU/EEA nationals, however, are specifically exempted from the MVV requirement.45 Grounds given for the exemption of these countries from the MVV requirement are factors such as Dutch economic interests, foreign relations, national security, and public order. The minister also referred to other reasons for the exemption such as similarity in socio-economic background and political terms, as well as the exemption not leading to unwanted immigration and problems with integration, which the previous government had identified as a factor in its explanatory memorandum to the bill.46

At no time though, has either the previous or the current government provided evidence on how the level of a country’s development affects the ability, inclinations, or willingness of a potential individual migrant to integrate in the Netherlands.47

Targets of Overseas Integration Test 

Although the integration test abroad applies to any would-be family migrant from predominantly “non-Western” countries (with the partial exemption of Suriname), in practice the test primarily targets nationals from Morocco and Turkey. Again, Turkish and Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands, the majority of whom are Dutch nationals, are disproportionately affected by these measures. Hence, while applying the test abroad also to family members of Dutch nationals at first glance appears to be equal treatment, in fact it affects Dutch nationals from the main immigrant groups to a far greater extent than it does Dutch nationals in general.

The three main non-western migrant communities in the Netherlands originate from Morocco, Turkey, and Suriname. Surinamese migrants are exempt from the test if they have a certain amount of Dutch education. In practice, therefore, the test primarily affects Turks and Moroccans seeking to migrate to the Netherlands for family reasons.

An explanatory memorandum that accompanied the integration abroad bill when it was introduced in parliament (as well as government documents on various proposed integration measures), suggest that  the measure was aimed mainly at Turkish and Moroccan brides “imported” by second-generation Dutch residents of Turkish and Moroccan origin. The government indicated that the bill was also aimed at addressing the problem of culturally and socially isolated Turkish and Moroccan women with children and those migrants who have difficulty accessing the labor market.48

Indeed, when the bill was introduced in 2004, the Dutch government assessed that almost half of all immigrants in the past years consisted of people joining family members in the Netherlands, including through marriage (so-called “subsequent migrants”).49 In the explanatory memorandum of the bill, the Dutch government states that:

…a significant portion of this group of migrants has characteristics that are unfavorable for adequate integration in Dutch society. The most prominent of these–also in size–is the group of family formers from Turkey and Morocco...Almost half of the family migrants come from Morocco and Turkey. These migrants have a poor starting position in Dutch society.50

The memorandum for the bill alleges further that these migrant groups “have little contact with Dutch people, identify mainly with their own group, and orient themselves mainly to their own language and culture.” Data is cited in the memo from the Social and Cultural Planning Office in support of the view that women from these groups are a burden on society:

Women from ethnic minority groups have a considerably lower level of education than native Dutch women. Of the Turkish women between 40 and 65 years of age, a maximum of 80 percent have had basic education, whereas this is true for not less than 90 percent of the older Moroccan women. They have a very low rate of participation in the labor market. … A quarter of them have jobs, and about 15 percent of the women on average are jobless as against 4 percent of the native Dutch women.51

The overseas integration test also affects the family members of some refugees and others in need of international protection. While family members of persons who have been recognized in the Netherlands as refugees are exempt from the test, many asylum applicants obtain forms of status other than as refugees, including regular residence permits. As the Dutch Council for Refugees has noted, those people who do not benefit from family reunification for refugees, and their family members, must meet the regular conditions for entry, including bypassing the overseas integration exam.52

Falling Application Rates after the Test was introduced

The introduction of the overseas integration test has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of applicants for MVVs for the purposes of family formation and reunification. This effect was anticipated by the government. In its explanatory documentation when the Integration Abroad Act (then a bill) was being debated in parliament, the government indicated the introduction of the legislation would result in some family migrants delaying or even canceling their intended settlement in the Netherlands.53

According to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND), the introduction of the overseas integration test in March 2006 is the main cause of the 20 percent reduction in the number of MVV applications for family reunification and family formation in 2006, compared to the previous year.54

There were only 14,500 MVV applications plus requests for advice on MVV applications from the “target group” (an overlapping but slightly larger category than those required to take the overseas integration test)55 in 2006 compared to almost 22,000 in 2005.56 There were 9,000 applications or requests for advice from the target group in the first 9 months of 2007.57

This effect is confirmed by the 2007 Integration Report by the Social and Cultural Planning Office in the Netherlands. It concludes that the Integration Abroad Act has had a restrictive effect on immigration for family formation and family reunification. 58

The introduction of the overseas integration test appears to have had a particularly notable effect on applications from Moroccan and Turkish spouses and family members wishing to migrate to the Netherlands. Although direct correlations cannot be proven, the numbers are still striking.59

The top countries of origin for MVV applications/requests from the target group in 2005 were Turkey (3,948), Morocco (3,527), Ghana (1.371), and China (1,013).60 Considering the figures provided for the target group, in 2006, the year of the introduction of the overseas integration test, procedures from Turkey fell by 39 percent and those from Morocco fell more than 44 percent. The top countries of origin in 2006 of MVV applications from the target group were Turkey (2,404), Morocco (1,964), and China (844).61 The numbers of applications remained low in the first nine months of 2007, with 1,329 applications from Turkey and 1,164 from Morocco.62

Tougher Test Planned

According to the Dutch government, in the first year around 90 percent of applicants successfully passed the integration examination abroad. In its budget estimate for 2006, the government anticipated that about 13,000 people would take the exam abroad each year.63 In fact, fewer than 5,000 applicants took the test in the first year.64  The fall in the number of applicants suggests that the high success rate may reflect self-selection on the part of those having to take the test.

Nonetheless, in June 2007, the Dutch government announced it was considering introducing a higher minimum passing score for the “Spoken Dutch” element of the overseas integration test. 65 The higher pass mark was originally intended to come into effect on December 1, 2007, but its introduction was postponed, pending the results of a study requested by the lower house of the Dutch Parliament. The study, carried out by the Research Centre for Examination and Certification (RCEC), stated that the current minimum passing score is too low to determine whether the candidate has actually achieved the required language level. The RCEC recommended an interim increase in the passing score and further study to determine an appropriate permanent increase.66 These recommendations have been adopted by the government, and an interim increase to the minimum passing score in the verbal proficiency section of the overseas integration test has been implemented since March 15, 2008.67

In a letter to Human Rights Watch,68 the minister indicated that that she expects the failure rate to be 14 percent (compared to the 6 percent hitherto) under the newly raised pass mark.69



31 Aged between 16 to 65 years.

32 The Integration Abroad Act (Wet inburgering in het buitenland, Wib) of December 22, 2005, amending Article 16 of the Law on Aliens. Official Gazette Staatsblad 2006, no. 28, Kamerstuk 29 700, January 31, 2006, STB9475, ISSN 0920 – 2064, http://www.eerstekamer.nl/9324000/1/j9vvgh5ihkk7kof/vh7rf1gymzy5/f=y.pdf (accessed March 4, 2008).

33 “Integration Abroad Act” (29.700), website Upper House, http://www.eerstekamer.nl/9324000/1f/j9vvgh5ihkk7kof/vgxun70y4d51 (accessed March 4, 2008), and Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting), http://www.justitie.nl/images/VvW%20Wet%20inburgering%20in%20het%20buitenland_2312_tcm34-73905.pdf?cp=34&cs=580 (accessed March 4, 2008).

34 Those exempt include: persons coming to the Netherlands with a work permit and their family members, the self-employed, and “knowledge” migrants (highly skilled workers), as well as family members of a person in posses­sion of an asylum-seeker’s residence permit and persons coming to the Netherlands for a temporary reason, such as study, au pair work, or medical treatment.

35 In Suriname, Dutch is the official language and the teaching language in schools.

36 European Community law (in particular Regulation No. 1612/68 and the relevant directives concerning the right of freedom of movement within the Community) does not allow the application of this integration requirement for EU citizens in other EU states.

37 The application will then be tested against the normal requirements of the Aliens Act.

38 Article 8:4 of the General Administrative Law Act.

39 According to article 9:1 of the General Administrative Law Act, an applicant can however complain against the circumstances under which the overseas integration test has taken place or against behavior by the public authority or public officer in service of that authority during the examination. Furthermore, in some cases where the computerized system is unable to generate a score for examination due to technical issues, these exams are assessed a second time by human examiners.

40 Letter from minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, also on behalf of the minister of foreign affairs and the state secretary of justice, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008.

41 Private tuition and Dutch language practice by telephone with a family member in the Netherlands or someone else who speaks Dutch are among the other proposed ways of preparing for the test. The other preparation materials of the package are in Dutch. A leaflet explaining the components of the examination package, possible practice for the examination, and the examination itself are available in 12 languages. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) website (www.ind.nl) suggests that the family member living in the Netherlands could purchase commercially available teaching materials in the Netherlands, some of which can be used for self-study, and can send it to family members abroad.

42 Letter from minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, also on behalf of the minister of foreign affairs and the state secretary of justice, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008.

43 It should be noted that nationals of some European states outside the European Union, such as e.g. from Russia, Ukraine, and countries of ex-Yugoslavia also have to take the test.

44 Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting), p. 19.

45 Letter from minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008.

46 Ibid.

47 See also Art. 1, the national association against discrimination, in its position paper submitted to ECRI, an agency of the Council of Europe, in January 2007 for the report on the Netherlands, http://www.art1.nl/scripts/download.php?document=345 (accessed February 14, 2008).

48 Leonard F.M. Besselink, “Unequal Citizenship: Integration measures and Equality,” Centre for Migration Law (Radboud University of Nijmegen), Sergio Carrera (ed.), Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), The Nexus between Immigration, Integration and Citizenship in the EU, Collective Conference Volume, Challenge Papers (the Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security), April 2006, p. 18. See also Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting).

49 Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting), p. 4.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid., p. 5.

52 VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, “(Geen)eebied voor gezinsleven”, November 2006.

53 Parliamentary Document, Second Chamber, Wet inburgering in het buitenland, KST 2003-2004, 29700, no. 3, (memorie van toelichting), p. 14.

54 IND report, annual results 2006, The Hague, March 2007, p. 3, http://www.ind.nl/en/Images/def_ENG_jaaroverz_06_tcm6-146619.pdf (accessed February 5, 2008).

55 The “target group” is defined in the IND monitor report as persons between 16 and 65 seeking to enter the Netherlands for “a non-temporary stay” and who require an MVV. It includes some MVV applicants who are exempt from the overseas integration test, such as family members of refugees. Surinamese migrants are excluded. Thus, figures do not reflect the actual number of persons who have to take the integration test abroad as the definition of the target group that is used by the IND does not include the whole target group. According to the INDIAC (IND Informatie- en Analysecentrum, Information and Analysis centre), it is not possible to get a better picture of the target group than that presented in the monitor report.

56 IND, Monitor Inburgeringsexamen Buitenland, November 2007, pp. 4, 27-28, http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs/kamerstukken/Mon26Nov20071528430100/BWWI2007116985MonitorWib-Nov2007.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

57 IND, Monitor Inburgeringsexamen Buitenland, November 2007, pp. 4, 27-28, http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs/kamerstukken/Mon26Nov20071528430100/BWWI2007116985MonitorWib-Nov2007.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

58 Integration Report 2007, Jaco Dagevos and Mérove Gijsberts, April 16, 2007, p. 57, http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/9789037703306/Jaarrapport_Integratie_2007.pdf.

59 It should be noted that in its 2007 judgment, D.H. and others v. Czech Republic, the European Court of Human Rights held that statistics are relevant to assessing the impact of a measure or practice on an individual or group, and that reliable and significant statistics may be sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of indirect discrimination.

60 IND, Monitor Inburgeringsexamen Buitenland, November 2007, p. 30, http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs/kamerstukken/Mon26Nov20071528430100/BWWI2007116985MonitorWib-Nov2007.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid: figures up to September 2007. The top countries of origin of all MVV applications in 2007 were China (4,506), India (3,756), Turkey (3,738), Suriname (2,341), and Morocco (2,244). Source: in English for the first 9 months IND, 2007 figures for provisional residence permits (MVV), http://www.ind.nl/en/Images/MVV%20200709%20EN_tcm6-144650.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008); in Dutch for the year 2007, http://www.ind.nl/nl/Images/MVV%20december%202007_tcm5-144650.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

63 Second Chamber, committee year 2005-2006: “Determining the budget of the Ministry of Justice for the year 2006” (Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van het Ministerie van Justitie (VI) voor het jaar 2006), 30 300 hoofdstuk VI, nr. 2, KST 88429-2, p. 117.

64 Between March 15, 2006 and March 15, 2007, 4,684 exams were completed by 4,434 candidates. See Letter of the present minister of housing, communities and integration of May 29, 2007 to the Second Chamber (TK 29700, no. 40), p. 2 and

 Integration Report 2007, Jaco Dagevos and Mérove Gijsberts, November 16, 2007, p. 57, http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/9789037703306/Jaarrapport_Integratie_2007.pdf (accessed March 4, 2008). For latest figures see IND, “Monitor Inburgeringsexamen Buitenland,” November 2007, p. 3, http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs/kamerstukken/Mon26Nov20071528430100/BWWI2007116985MonitorWib-Nov2007.pdf (accessed February 8, 2007).

65 See Letter of the present minister of housing, communities and integration of May 29, 2007 to the Second Chamber (TK 29700, no. 40), where it was still foreseen that 25 percent would fail the test under a new passing score, and another letter of February 5, 2008 on the introduction of the more difficult integration test abroad on March 15, 2008. The February 2008 letter states that the formal language level required will not change, but in fact the test becomes more difficult, i.e. more correct answers are needed to pass, and hence it would be unfair to introduce the new stricter test before the announced date, although all the required changes for administering the new test are in place. See also Letter of the minister of November 28, 2007 to the Second Chamber (TK 29700, no. 49).

66 In a Letter from the minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, also on behalf of the minister of foreign affairs and the state secretary of justice, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008, the minister further outlined that further research will be conducted on a definitive pass mark for the spoken Dutch part of the overseas integration test. Research will include a meticulous examination with regard to the conditions in which the examination is taken and the possibilities for preparation that have to be offered by the Dutch government.

67 See website of the IND, http://www.ind.nl/en/inbedrijf/actueel/Aanpassing_slaaggrens_Toets_Gesproken_Nederlands_uitgesteld.asp, and http://www.ind.nl/en/inbedrijf/actueel/Slaaggrens_Toets_Gesproken_Nederlands_per_15_maart_2008_aangepast.asp, as well as website of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: http://international.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=11136 (accessed February 18, 2008).

68 Letter from minister for housing, communities and integration, March 19, 2008, also on behalf of the minister of foreign affairs and the state secretary of justice, responding to Human Rights Watch letter, January 23, 2008.

69 This percentage is based on the examination results for the last 1.5 years. What the exact failure rate will be under the new pass mark is still uncertain, as the minister notes.