- 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-546/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 2(1) — Scope — Third-country national — Criminal conviction in the Member State — Article 3(6) — Entry ban — Grounds of public policy and public security — Withdrawal of the return decision — Lawfulness of the entry ban)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0546
62019CA0546
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 289/5
(Case C-546/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 2(1) - Scope - Third-country national - Criminal conviction in the Member State - Article 3(6) - Entry ban - Grounds of public policy and public security - Withdrawal of the return decision - Lawfulness of the entry ban)
(2021/C 289/06)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BZ
Defendant: Westerwaldkreis
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a ban on entry and stay, imposed by a Member State, which has not made use of the option provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order on grounds of public security and public policy, on the basis of a previous criminal conviction.
2.Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding the maintenance in force of a ban on entry and stay, issued by a Member State against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order, which has become final, adopted on grounds of public security and public policy on the basis of a previous criminal conviction, where the return decision adopted in respect of that third-country national by that state has been withdrawn, even if that expulsion order has become final.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
* * *
Language of the case: German.