- 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-380/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other party: E.P.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0380
62018CN0380
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
(Case C-380/18)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Questions referred
1.Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (1) … be interpreted as meaning that, when establishing that a legal stay of no more than 90 days within a period of 180 days has been terminated because a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy, reasons must be given as to why the personal conduct of the foreign national 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 which, pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … apply to the reasons as to why the foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy? Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public order on the sole ground that it has been established that the foreign national concerned is suspected of having committed a criminal offence?
*
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).