The status of recognized sponsorship cannot be revoked due to nonuse

To hire a foreign national as a highly skilled migrant, a Dutch company needs to be recognized by the IND as a recognized sponsor. Often, it is a time consuming and expensive process to obtain the status of recognized sponsorship. After a company obtains the sponsorship status, the status could be lost, when a company had not been hiring a highly skilled migrant or applying for a highly skilled migrant permit for three consecutive years. This regulation was (and is still) enshrined in article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulation 2000 (“Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000”).

By decision of 12 June 2020, the State Secretary revoked a Dutch company’s recognized sponsorship status, as the company did not make use of its recognized sponsorship status. This Dutch company believed that article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulation was in contravention of a higher law, namely article 2g of the Immigration Act 2000 (“Vreemdelingenwet 2000”). 

On 20 December 2023, the Court of the Hague gave its judgment. The Court holds that article 2g of the Immigration Act 2000 gives an exhaustive list of revocation grounds on which the status of recognized sponsorship can be revoked. One of these grounds is that a recognized sponsor no longer meets the conferral conditions. Article 2g of the Immigration Act 2000 does not require that the status of recognized sponsorship must be used actively during a specific period in a prescribed manner. Nonetheless, pursuant to article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulation 2000, the status of recognized sponsorship must be “used actively” in the prescribed manner. The Court holds that this requirement of “active use” cannot be accepted as a supplement to the revocation ground of “no longer meeting the conferral conditions.” Active use of the sponsorship status is not a conferral condition, as a company can only start making use of the status of recognized sponsor (after being recognized).  Therefore, article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulation contains a new revocation ground, which is not in compliance with article 2g of the Immigration Act. This stance can also be supported by the parliamentarian records, which show that the Dutch legislators chose not to opt for this revocation ground because of the financial burden for both the government and the companies. Therefore, according to the Members of Parliament, revocation is not necessary in the event that a company does not make active use of its status of recognized sponsorship. As a corollary, the judges of the Court of the Hague declared article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulation 2000 invalid, as it is evidently a contravention of a higher law. Notwithstanding this judgment, the Minister of Justice has not removed the invalid provision of article 1.15a from the Immigration Regulation 2000. 

Should you have any questions about the status of recognized sponsorship, please feel free to contact Mynta Law.