- 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-949/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — M.A. v Konsul Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w N. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Visa policy — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 21(2a) — Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Refusal of a long-stay visa by the consul — Obligation on a Member State to guarantee a remedy before a tribunal against a decision refusing such a visa)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0949
62019CA0949
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 182/18
(Case C-949/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Visa policy - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 21(2a) - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Refusal of a long-stay visa by the consul - Obligation on a Member State to guarantee a remedy before a tribunal against a decision refusing such a visa)
(2021/C 182/25)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: M.A.
Defendant: Konsul Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w N.
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 21(2a) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, which was signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as not being applicable to a national of a third State who has been refused a long-stay visa.
2.EU law, in particular Article 34(5) of Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against decisions refusing a visa for the purpose of studies, within the meaning of that directive, the procedural rules of which are a matter for the legal order of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and that procedure must, at a certain stage, guarantee a judicial appeal. It is for the referring court to establish whether the application for a national long-term visa for the purpose of studies that is at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of that directive.
(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.