(Case C-381/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.S.

Questions referred

1.Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC (1) … be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal or the refusal to renew the residence permit of a family member on grounds of public policy require that reasons be stated as to why the personal conduct of the family member concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society?

2.If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … that apply to the reasons for the withdrawal or the refusal to renew the residence permit of a family member on grounds of public policy?

Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … therefore be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which the residence permit of a family member can be withdrawn or the renewal thereof can be refused on grounds of public policy if the penalty or measure to which the family member concerned has been sentenced is sufficiently high in relation to the duration of the lawful stay in the Netherlands (the ‘sliding scale’), so that, based on the criteria laid down in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) of 2 August 2001, Boultif v Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD005427300, and 18 October 2006, Üner v The Netherlands, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099, a balance is struck between the interest of the family member concerned to exercise the right to family reunification in the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the interests of the Netherlands State to protect public order, on the other hand?

Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

Language of the case: Dutch