- 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
Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Enhanced protection against expulsion — Conditions — Right of permanent residence — Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State — Period of imprisonment — Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence — Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link — Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0316
62016CA0316
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
201805250071897482018/C 200/043162016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804174521
C2002018EN410120180417EN00044152
(Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16) (*1)
Language of the case: German and English
Referring court
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: B (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-424/16)
Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Franco Vomero (C-424/16)
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 28(3)(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it is a prerequisite of eligibility for the protection against expulsion provided for in that provision that the person concerned must have a right of permanent residence within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive.
2.Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a Union citizen who is serving a custodial sentence and against whom an expulsion decision is adopted, the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’ laid down in that provision may be satisfied where an overall assessment of the person’s situation, taking into account all the relevant aspects, leads to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that detention, the integrative links between the person concerned and the host Member State have not been broken. Those aspects include, inter alia, the strength of the integrative links forged with the host Member State before the detention of the person concerned, the nature of the offence that resulted in the period of detention imposed, the circumstances in which that offence was committed and the conduct of the person concerned throughout the period of detention.
3.Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a person satisfies the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’, within the meaning of that provision, must be assessed at the date on which the initial expulsion decision is adopted.
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
(2) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.