3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/23

(Case C-240/17)

(2017/C 213/31)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

*Applicant: E

Other parties to the proceedings: Maahanmuuttovirasto

Questions referred

1.Is Article 25(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to consult among Contracting States has legal effects that can be relied on by third-country national in a situation in which a Contracting State imposes an entry ban for the entire Schengen Area and order his return to his home country on the ground that he constitutes a threat to public order and public safety?

2.If Article 25(2) of Convention applies to the imposition of an entry ban, must the consultations begin before the imposition of the entry ban or may the consultation start only after the imposition of the ban when the decision to deport that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken?

3.If the consultations may begin only afterwards, when the decision to return that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken, does the fact that negotiations between Contracting States are on-going and that the other Contracting State has not indicated its intention to withdraw the residence permit of the third-country national prevent the decision to deport the third country national and the imposition of an entry ban with respect to the entire Schengen Area from taking effect?

4.How is a Contracting State to proceed in circumstances in which the Contracting State which granted the residence permit, despite repeated requests, has not expressed its views regarding the withdrawal of the residence permit granted to a third country national?