Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/16

(Case C-434/10)

()

2010/C 317/31

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petar Aladzhov

Defendant: Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Questions referred

1.Must the prohibition on leaving the territory of a Member State of the European Union which has been imposed on a national of that State as the director of a commercial company registered under the law of the State concerned on account of unpaid public-law debts owed by that company be regarded as falling within the scope of the ground of protection of ‘public policy’ provided for in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC 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 in the circumstances of the main proceedings and where the following circumstances also obtain:

1.1.the constitution of that Member State makes no provision for restricting the freedom of movement of natural persons for the purpose of protecting public policy;

1.2.the ground of ‘public policy’ as a basis for imposing the aforementioned prohibition is contained in a national law which was adopted in order to transpose another legislative act of the European Union;

1.3.the ground of ‘public policy’ within the meaning of the aforementioned provision of the directive also includes the ground of ‘protection of the rights of other citizens’ where a measure is adopted to secure the budgetary revenue of the Member State by means of the settlement of public-law debts?

2.In the circumstances of the main proceedings, does it follow from the limitations and conditions laid down in respect of the exercise of freedom of movement for Union citizens and from the measures adopted in accordance with EU law to give them effect that a national rule of law under which the Member State imposes on one of its nationals, in his capacity as director of a commercial company registered under the law of the Member State concerned, an administrative coercive measure in the form of a ‘prohibition on leaving the country’ on account of unpaid public-law debts owed to that State which are classified as ‘considerable’ under its law is permissible where the procedure for cooperation between the Member States under Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures may be applied for the purpose of settling the debt?

3.In the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of proportionality and the limitations and conditions laid down in respect of the exercise of freedom of movement for Union citizens and the measures adopted in accordance with EU law to give them effect, or as the case may be the criteria contained in Article 27(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC 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 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a commercial company registered under the law of a Member State owes a public-law debt classified as a ‘considerable debt’ under the law of that State, they allow a natural person who is the director of the company concerned to be prohibited from leaving that Member State where the following circumstances obtain:

3.1.the existence of a ‘considerable’ public-law debt is regarded as a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society, an assessment which the legislature has made by introducing the specific administrative measure of a ‘prohibition on leaving the country’;

3.2.no provision is made for an assessment of circumstances connected with the personal conduct of the director or with an infringement of his fundamental rights, such as his right to pursue an occupational activity involving travelling abroad under a separate legal relationship;

3.3.the consequences for the commercial activities of the debtor company and the possibilities of settling the public-law debt are not assessed after the prohibition has been imposed;

3.4.the prohibition is imposed on the basis of an application which is binding if it certifies that a ‘considerable’ public-law debt exists which is owed by a specific commercial company, that the debt is not secured to an extent sufficient to cover the principal and the interest, and that the person against whom the imposition of the prohibition is applied for is a member of an executive body of that commercial company;

3.5.the prohibition lasts until such time as the public-law debt is fully settled or secured, but no provision is made for a review of that prohibition on application by the addressee to the authority which imposed the prohibition or for account to be taken of the limitation period applicable to the debt?

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ L 158, p. 77.

(<span class="super">2</span>) OJ L 150, p. 28.

(<span class="super">3</span>) OJ L 319, p. 21.