27.6.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/3

(Joined Cases C-451/19 and C-532/19) (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 20 TFEU - Union citizenship - Union citizen who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement - Application for a residence card for his or her family member who is a third-country national - Refusal - Obligation for the Union citizen to have sufficient resources - Obligation for spouses to live together - Minor child who is a Union citizen - National legislation and practice - Genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on EU nationals - Deprivation)

(2022/C 244/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Defendants: XU (C-451/19), QP (C-532/19)

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing an application for family reunification made for the benefit of a third-country national who is family member of a Union citizen, the latter being a national of that Member State and who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement, on the sole ground that that Union citizen does not have, for himself or herself and for that family member, sufficient resources so as not to become a burden on the national social assistance system, without there having been an examination of whether there exists, between that Union citizen and that member of his or her family, a relationship of dependency of such a nature that, in the event of a refusal to grant a derived right of residence to that family member, that Union citizen would be forced to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and would thereby be deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by his or her status as a Union citizen;

2.Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a relationship of dependency capable of justifying the grant of a derived right of residence under that article does not exist on the sole ground that a national of a Member State who is an adult and has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement, and his or her spouse, who is an adult and a third-country national, are required to live together under the obligations arising from marriage according to the law of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national and in which the marriage was entered into and, second, that, where the Union citizen is a minor, the assessment of the existence of a relationship of dependency capable of justifying the grant of a derived right of residence under that article to that child’s parent, who is a third-country national, must be based on the taking into account, in the child’s best interests, of all of the circumstances of the case. Where that parent lives on a stable basis with the other parent, who is a Union citizen, of that minor, there is a rebuttable presumption of such a relationship of dependency;

3.Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a relationship of dependency capable of justifying the grant of a derived right of residence under that article to a minor child, who is a third-country national, of the spouse, who himself or herself is a third-country national, of a Union citizen who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement exists where the marriage between that Union citizen and his or her spouse produces a child who is a Union citizen and who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement, and where that child would be forced to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole if the minor child who is a third-country national were forced to leave the territory of the Member State concerned.

(*) Language of the case: Spanish.

OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140