Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1533

17.3.2025

(Case C-57/25)

(C/2025/1533)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—declare that Estonia has infringed its obligations under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 32(3), Article 34(7) and Article 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (Visa Code), since Estonia did not provide in its legal order that a third-country national could bring an action before a court within the meaning of EU law against the decision concerning the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa;

—order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Articles 32(3), 34(7) and 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a code on visas, foreign nationals, whose visa application has been refused or whose visa has been annulled or revoked, have the right to appeal. Article 32(3) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to provide for a procedure concerning the challenge of a decision with respect to the refusal of a visa, the details of which are to be specified in the legal order of the individual Member State. That procedure at any stage thereof must ensure a judicial remedy.

Paragraphs 1001-10019 of the Estonian Law on foreign nationals introduced a system whereby a foreign national could seek a review of the decision with respect to the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa by the authorities who issued that decision; an application for an appeal against that decision could also be filed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of the Interior. In Paragraph 10018 of the Law on foreign nationals a direct prohibition was laid down in order to challenge such a decision in legal proceedings. The Commission is of the view that the challenge of a decision concerning the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa by an administrative authority, for example a ministry, which is neither independent nor impartial, cannot be viewed as an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 32(3), Article 34(7) and Article 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1533/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: Estonian