From Rumours to Reality: Court‑Backed Doubt Over New Recognised Sponsor‑Withdrawal Rules

In our previous article, we set the table for an overhaul of the Highly Skilled Migrant (HSM) scheme and the accompanying recognised‑sponsor framework. We outlined the headline proposals. Tighter sponsor obligations and a new clause allowing the withdrawal of sponsorship when a sponsor is “inactive.” But it is important to pause and recognise that none of these changes are yet set in stone.

The proposals are still in their infancy, circulating in draft form, and subject to the inevitable political and legislative wrangling that follows any policy shift.

What’s more, early judicial scrutiny has already turned up cracks in the logic of some of the suggested reforms. In particular, a recent court decision found that the notion of revoking a sponsor’s recognition simply because the sponsor has not actively used the system does not find footing in the letter of existing law. Until the legislation is amended to reflect such a provision—and until the courts give it a clean sweep—the idea remains legally tenuous.

This article will dig into that uncertainty, exploring why the current legal architecture resists these particular changes and what that means for employers, migrants, and policy‑makers alike.

---

The Proposed Amendment

Short: “Withdraw a recognised sponsor if, within the last three years, the sponsor has not utilised any of the accelerated‑integration procedures.”

Problem: This clause introduces a new, previously unmentioned ground for withdrawal that is not enshrined in either the Immigration Act (Vw) or the Immigration Regulations (VV). Consequently, the legal basis for revoking sponsorship on the sole basis of non‑use is missing from the statutory framework, leaving the provision vulnerable to judicial challenge.

---

The Judicial Ruling

The court found that revoking a recognised sponsor solely based on non‑use is not grounded in the text of the law. Specifically, Article 1.15a of the Immigration Regulations—together with the newly proposed withdrawal clause—introduces an additional ground for revocation that is absent from Article 2g of the Immigration Act.

The legislator had expressly opted not to adopt such a ground, as documented in the explanatory memorandum that excluded “non‑use.” Consequently, the court held that the withdrawal, as outlined, is not legally binding and cannot be applied validly without an amendment to the statute itself.

Conclusion

The court’s decision makes it clear that the proposed withdrawal mechanism is not grounded in the text of the law. Without an explicit statutory amendment, it remains uncertain whether—let alone how—a sponsor can be revoked solely because it has been unused. Policymakers must therefore tread carefully and revisit the legal foundation before enacting such changes to the recognised‑sponsor system.

This ruling also demonstrates that the proposed reforms for both Recognised sponsorship and HSM are not yet a clear rule; further adjustments are likely. Moreover, there are additional forces at play: major firms such as ASML have publicly opposed the changes, warning that the Netherlands could lose their operations if the policy moves forward as currently outlined. These economic concerns add another layer of complexity to the already contentious debate.