- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-637/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 October 2021 — K.R.; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0637
62021CN0637
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
17.1.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/19
(Case C-637/21)
(2022/C 24/25)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: K.R.
Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Questions referred
1.Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years?
2.If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether a presence in the host Member State by such an EU citizen interrupts a period of absence from the host Member State exceeding two consecutive years? In that regard, is it relevant whether the EU citizen concerned relocated the centre of her interests to another Member State?
Language of the case: Dutch
(1) OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.