- 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-381/18 and C-382/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — G.S. (C-381/18), V.G. (C-382/18) v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (References for a preliminary ruling — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Concept of ‘grounds of public policy’ — Rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member — Withdrawal of or refusal to renew a residence permit of a family member)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0381
62018CA0381
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
17.2.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 54/4
(Joined Cases C-381/18 and C-382/18) (*)
(References for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Immigration policy - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification - Concept of ‘grounds of public policy’ - Rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member - Withdrawal of or refusal to renew a residence permit of a family member)
(2020/C 54/05)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: G.S. (C-381/18), V.G. (C-382/18)
Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Operative part of the judgment
1.The Court has jurisdiction under Article 267 TFEU to interpret Article 6 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation in which a court is called upon to rule on an application for entry and residence of a third-country national who is a member of the family of a Union citizen who has not exercised his or her right to free movement, where that provision has been made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation by national law.
2.Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which the competent authorities may, on grounds of public policy, first, reject an application, founded on that directive, for entry and residence, on the basis of a criminal conviction imposed during a previous stay on the territory of the Member State concerned and, second, withdraw a residence permit founded on that directive or refuse to renew it where a sentence sufficiently severe in comparison with the duration of the stay has been imposed on the applicant, provided that that practice is applicable only if the offence which warranted the criminal conviction at issue is sufficiently serious to establish that it is necessary to rule out residence of that applicant and that those authorities carry out the individual assessment provided for in Article 17 of that directive, matters which are for the referring court to verify.
(*)
OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.