On 15 April 2026, the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) published Information Bulletin IB 2026/12 Middelenvereiste – eigen vermogen. The bulletin introduces a new rule of thumb for residence applications in which an applicant or sponsor relies on savings or other liquid capital to satisfy the means requirement.
Under the bulletin, the IND may normally consider capital sufficient and sustainable when it is equal to at least 36 months of the applicable monthly net norm amount, including holiday allowance. In practical terms, applicants relying entirely on savings may therefore be expected to demonstrate that they can cover three years of the relevant IND income standard.
Although the bulletin gives IND caseworkers a clearer assessment framework, the 36-month benchmark raises significant legal questions. It is not contained in Dutch legislation or the relevant EU directives, and it cannot replace the individual assessment required under Dutch and EU case law.
What is IB 2026/12?
Although IB 2026/12 is sometimes described as a work instruction, it is formally an Informatiebericht, or information bulletin. Such bulletins contain temporary instructions for IND decision-makers or personnel, often pending an amendment to a formal work instruction or to the Vreemdelingencirculaire.
IB 2026/12 was published on 15 April 2026 and is currently stated to be valid from 14 April 2026 through 14 October 2026. The IND expects its contents eventually to be incorporated into the Vreemdelingencirculaire. Its listed subjects include economically inactive applicants, family members and the general means requirement.
The bulletin concerns situations in which the capital itself constitutes the means of subsistence. This must be distinguished from income generated by capital, such as interest, dividends, rental income or investment returns. In the latter situation, the underlying capital generally may not be depleted. Under IB 2026/12, however, the savings or capital itself may be used to finance the applicant’s living expenses.
Why did the IND introduce the bulletin?
The bulletin follows an important judgment of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.
In that case, a sponsor relied on savings rather than regular employment income. The IND had concentrated primarily on the notional fiscal return generated by the capital. The Council of State held that this was insufficient. The IND also had to examine the capital itself and carry out a concrete assessment of the sponsor’s financial situation. That assessment had to include matters such as:
- the actual amount of capital available;
- the rate at which the capital was being spent;
- the sponsor’s expenditure pattern;
- employment prospects; and
- whether the family was likely to require social assistance in the near future.
The Council of State expressly held that the IND had failed to make the required concrete assessment. It also required the IND to explain what it understood by the “near future” in this context.
IB 2026/12 attempts to fill this gap and create a more uniform method for assessing capital.
The new 36-month rule of thumb
The central provision of IB 2026/12 states that, as a rule of thumb, capital may be regarded as sufficient and sustainable when the applicant has:
the applicable monthly net norm amount, including holiday allowance, multiplied by 36 months.
The IND considers this amount sufficient to show that the applicant can support themselves in the “near future” without relying on public funds.
The capital must also be freely withdrawable. Money in a savings account will generally meet this condition, whereas capital tied up in a house, company, long-term investment or asset that cannot readily be sold may not be immediately accepted.
In addition, the IND may examine:
- how the capital was obtained;
- whether the funds were already present before the application;
- whether there was a sudden deposit shortly before or during the procedure;
- whether gifts or inheritances have been properly declared for tax purposes;
- bank statements showing the balance history, potentially covering at least a year before the application; and
- debts directly connected with a gift, inheritance or other source of funds.
Capital with an unclear or unexplained origin may be disregarded. The same may happen where a large amount was deposited around the date of the application and no credible explanation or supporting documents are provided.
In which applications can IB 2026/12 be relevant?
The bulletin forms part of the IND’s regular migration framework concerning means of subsistence. It may therefore become relevant where an applicant or sponsor does not have sufficient recurring income but has substantial savings. Examples include:
- applications for residence with a partner or family member;
- applications by economically inactive EU long-term residents moving to the Netherlands;
- permanent residence applications involving capital or third-party resources;
- cases involving a combination of savings and limited employment income;
- applicants supported through an inheritance, gift or family arrangement; and
- other regular residence procedures in which sufficient and sustainable resources are required.
However, these residence routes are governed by different legal provisions. Some fall primarily under Dutch law, while others are governed by EU directives. A single internal rule cannot be applied without regard to those differences.
Why the new guideline is legally questionable
1. A rule of thumb cannot become a fixed rejection threshold
IB 2026/12 expressly describes the 36-month amount as a vuistregel, or rule of thumb. Its own disclaimer also acknowledges that there may be good reasons to provide individual tailoring or to deviate from an information bulletin in a particular case.
The legal problem therefore does not necessarily lie in the IND using 36 months as an initial reference point. The problem arises when caseworkers treat it as an absolute condition and reject every applicant with less than 36 months of savings.
Dutch and EU case law requires more than a mechanical calculation.
In case law, the Council of State required a concrete examination of the applicant’s and sponsor’s circumstances. The IND had to examine the actual capital, expenditure, expected depletion and future financial prospects. It could not decide the case solely by applying a general fiscal formula.
For family reunification cases falling within EU law, the European Court of Justice reached a similar conclusion. A Member State may use a financial amount as a reference, but it may not impose a minimum below which all applications are automatically refused without examining the situation of the individual applicant. The Court emphasised that household needs may vary considerably from one person or family to another.
For instance, a person who owns their home without a mortgage, has very low living expenses, receives accommodation from a family member or expects verifiable future income may have a much lower risk of relying on social assistance than another applicant with the same amount of savings. Conversely, a person with substantial debts or unusually high expenses may not necessarily be financially secure merely because the balance in their bank account reaches the 36-month benchmark.
Uniformity in decision-making is understandable, but uniformity cannot take the place of an individual assessment.
2. The 36-month requirement has no express statutory basis
The general requirement to possess sufficient and sustainable means of subsistence does have a basis in Dutch and EU law.
What is missing is an express legal provision stating that applicants relying on capital must possess exactly three years of the applicable net norm amount.
IB 2026/12 does not identify a provision in the Vreemdelingenwet, the Vreemdelingenbesluit, Directive 2003/86/EC or Directive 2003/109/EC that prescribes 36 months. Instead, the bulletin refers generally to the need to have sufficient means for the “near future” and states that the 36-month formula has been selected to create uniformity in decision-making.
This makes the figure an administrative policy choice rather than a statutory threshold.
The distinction is important. An administrative rule may help structure the IND’s discretion, but it cannot introduce a new mandatory admission condition that is absent from legislation. Every decision must still explain why, in the particular circumstances, a lower amount does or does not create a genuine risk that the applicant will require social assistance.
The European Court of Justice has also confirmed in a judgment concerning the EU Long-Term Residents Directive that authorities must assess resources in light of the applicant’s individual circumstances as a whole. They must give reasons why the resources are or are not sufficiently stable, regular and sustainable. The origin of those resources is not decisive by itself.
3. The concept of a “net norm amount” is ambiguous
The bulletin refers to the applicable monthly net norm amount, including holiday allowance. This is a standardised reference amount and should not be confused with an individual applicant’s actual take-home salary or disposable income.
Different applicants may have substantially different net financial positions despite receiving the same gross salary. Tax deductions, benefits, household composition and special tax arrangements can affect the amount actually available each month. For example, qualifying international employees may receive part of their remuneration tax-free under the Dutch expat scheme, commonly known as the 30% ruling.
This does not mean that the official IND norm itself changes because someone has the expat scheme. It illustrates why different “net” figures are not interchangeable and why the IND must clearly identify which norm has been used, why that norm applies to the particular residence category and whether the applicant has other income or resources.
Multiplying a general norm by 36 without considering these factors may produce an artificial assessment that does not reflect the applicant’s real financial position.
4. Different residence categories cannot be treated identically
IB 2026/12 appears to provide one general capital benchmark for several types of residence application. However, different applications are governed by different legal frameworks.
This is especially relevant to persons who already hold EU long-term resident status in another Member State and wish to move to the Netherlands as economically inactive residents.
The EU directive allows the host Member State to require applicants to have stable and regular resources sufficient to support themselves and their family without relying on social assistance. The Member State may examine the nature and regularity of the resources and take account of minimum wages and pensions. The directive does not prescribe a 36-month capital amount.
In a recent Dutch judgment concerning an economically inactive EU long-term resident, the court considered a substantial bank balance that could support the applicant for at least one year. In practice, the amount in this type of calculation is sometimes described as approximately 12 to 14 monthly norm amounts, depending on the applicable norm and the timing of the application.
That judgment should not be presented as establishing an absolute rule that 14 months of savings must always be accepted. It is a first-instance judgment and depended on the circumstances of that particular case. Nevertheless, it demonstrates why the IND cannot assume that 36 months is the legally required minimum in every EU long-term resident case.
5. Lawfully acquired recent funds should not automatically be disregarded
The IND is entitled to investigate fraud, artificial deposits and funds whose origin cannot be explained. Requesting bank statements, gift agreements, inheritance documents or tax records may therefore be reasonable. However, a recent deposit is not necessarily artificial.
An applicant may recently have:
- sold a property;
- received an inheritance;
- received a genuine and irrevocable gift;
- sold shares or another investment;
- received compensation following litigation;
- withdrawn funds from a company; or
- transferred savings from a foreign bank account.
Where the origin is lawful, properly documented and the money is genuinely available, the timing of the transfer should not by itself justify excluding the capital. The essential question remains whether the applicant can freely use the funds and whether they are sufficient in the individual circumstances.
An increasing number of disputed rejections
In its recent casework, Pathway Partners has observed an increasing number of IND decisions in which applications are rejected because the applicant allegedly has insufficient savings.
Many of these decisions are legally debatable. In some cases, the IND appears to treat the 36-month amount as a hard requirement without adequately considering the individual circumstances of the applicants.
An IND information bulletin cannot override legislation, EU law or binding case law. A balance below the 36-month benchmark does not automatically mean that an application must fail. Equally, holding the stated amount does not guarantee approval when the origin, accessibility or sustainability of the funds remains unclear.
How Pathway Partners can assist
Applicants should not assume that a rejection based on insufficient savings is legally correct merely because the IND refers to IB 2026/12.
Pathway Partners can provide:
- a bespoke analysis of the applicable residence route and means requirement;
- an assessment of savings, income, expenditure, debts and supporting documents;
- advice on how to document gifts, inheritances and foreign assets;
- legal arguments based on Dutch and EU law;
- assistance responding to requests for additional information from the IND;
- representation in an administrative objection procedure, or bezwaar; and
- representation in an appeal before the administrative court, or beroep.
The correct assessment depends on the residence category, the origin and accessibility of the funds and the applicant’s complete financial circumstances. Applicants who have received or expect to receive a negative IND decision should seek professional advice promptly and observe the legal deadline stated in the decision.
If you are facing a similar situation, please contact Pathway Partners for a professional consultation and a bespoke analysis of your case.