23.7.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/11

(Case C-256/11)

2011/C 219/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Murat Dereci, Vishaka Heiml, Alban Kokollari, Izunna Emmanuel Maduike and Dragica Stevic

Defendant: Bundesminister für Inneres

Questions referred

(a)Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country — whose spouse and minor children are Union citizens — residence in the Member State of residence of the spouse and children, who are nationals of that Member State, even in the case where those Union citizens are not dependent on the national of a non-member country for their subsistence? (Dereci case)

(b)Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country — whose spouse is a Union citizen — residence in the Member State of residence of that spouse, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where that Union citizen is not dependent on the national of a non-member country for his or her subsistence? (Heiml and Maduike cases)

(c)Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country — who has reached the age of majority and whose mother is a Union citizen — residence in the Member State of residence of the mother, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where it is not the Union citizen who is dependent on the national of a non-member country for her subsistence but rather that national of a non-member country who is dependent on the Union citizen for his subsistence? (Kokollari case)

(d)Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country — who has reached the age of majority and whose father is a Union citizen — residence in the Member State of residence of the father, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where it is not the Union citizen who is dependent on the national of a non-member country for his subsistence but rather the national of a non-member country who receives subsistence support from the Union citizen? (Stevic case)

If any of the questions under 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Does the obligation on the Member States under Article 20 TFEU to grant residence to nationals of non-member countries relate to a right of residence which follows directly from European Union law, or is it sufficient that the Member State grants the right of residence to the national of a non-member country on the basis of its law establishing such a right?

If, according to the answer to Question 2, a right of residence exists by virtue of European Union law:

Under what conditions, exceptionally, does the right of residence which follows from European Union law not exist, or under what conditions may the national of a non-member country be deprived of the right of residence?

In the event that Article 20 TFEU does not prevent a national of a non-member country, as in the situation of Mr Dereci, from being denied residence in the Member State:

Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, drawn up by of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, or Article 41 of the Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, which, according to Article 62 thereof, forms an integral part of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, preclude, in a case such as that of Mr Dereci, the subjection of the initial entry of a Turkish national to stricter national rules than those which previously applied to the initial entry of Turkish nationals, even though those national provisions which had facilitated the initial entry did not enter into force until after the date on which the aforementioned provisions concerning the association with Turkey entered into force in the Member State in question?

* Language of the case: German.

(OJ 1972 L 293, p. 4)