24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

Document52009DC0313
About this document

Text

Procedure

Linked documents

All

Collapse all|Expand all

Title and reference

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on guidance for better
transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family
members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
/* COM/2009/0313 final */

Languages and formats available

HTML
DOC
PDF

BG

ES

CS

DA

DE

ET

EL

EN

FR

GA

HR

IT

LV

LT

HU

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SK

SL

FI

SV

Multilingual display
Language 1 English (en)

Language 2 Please choose

Language 3 Please choose

Display

Text

52009DC0313
CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilonguidanceforbettertransposition
andapplicationofDirective2004/38/EContherightofcitizensoftheUnionandtheirfamilymemberstomoveand
residefreelywithintheterritoryoftheMemberStates/*COM/2009/0313final*/

[pic]|COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES|
Brussels,2.7.2009
COM(2009)313final
COMMUNICATIONFROMTHECOMMISSIONTOTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDTHECOUNCIL
onguidanceforbettertranspositionandapplicationofDirective2004/38/EContherightofcitizensoftheUnion
andtheirfamilymemberstomoveandresidefreelywithintheterritoryoftheMemberStates
COMMUNICATIONFROMTHECOMMISSIONTOTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDTHECOUNCIL
onguidanceforbettertranspositionandapplicationofDirective2004/38/EContherightofcitizensoftheUnion
andtheirfamilymemberstomoveandresidefreelywithintheterritoryoftheMemberStates(TextwithEEA
relevance)
1.INTRODUCTION
On10December2008,theCommissionadopteditsreport[1]ontheapplicationofDirective2004/38/EC[2]which
presentedacomprehensiveoverviewofhowtheDirectiveistransposedintonationallawandhowitisappliedin
everydaylife.
ThereportconcludedthattheoveralltranspositionoftheDirectivewasratherdisappointing,particularlyas
regardsChapterVI(whichprovidesfortherightofMemberStatestorestricttherightofEUcitizensandtheir
familymembersongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity)andArticle35(whichauthorisesMemberStatesto
adoptmeasurestopreventabuseandfraud,suchasmarriagesofconvenience).
TheCommissionannouncedinthereportitsintentiontoofferinformationandassistancetobothMemberStates
andEUcitizensbyissuingguidelinesinthefirsthalfof2009ontheissuesidentifiedasproblematicin
transpositionorapplication.ThisintentionwaswelcomedbytheCouncil[3]andbytheEuropeanParliament[4].
TheguidelinesstatetheviewsoftheCommissionandarewithoutprejudicetothecaselawoftheCourtofJustice
(theCourt)anditsdevelopment.
ThisCommunicationaimstoprovideguidancetoMemberStatesonhowtoapplyDirective2004/38/ECof29April
2004ontherightofcitizensoftheUnionandtheirfamilymemberstomoveandresidefreelywithintheterritory
oftheMemberStatescorrectlywiththeobjectiveofbringingarealimprovementforallEUcitizensandofmaking
theEUanareaofsecurity,freedomandjustice.
Thereportalsoidentifiedfrequentproblemsrelatingtotherightofentryandresidenceofthirdcountryfamily
membersofEUcitizens,andtorequirementstosubmitwiththeapplicationsforresidenceadditionaldocuments
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

1/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

notforeseenintheDirective.TheCommissionannouncedinthereportthatitwillstepupitseffortstoensurethat
theDirectiveiscorrectlytransposedandimplemented.Inordertoachievethisobjective,theCommissionwill
continuetoinformcitizensabouttheirrightsundertheDirective,inparticularbydistributingasimplifiedguidefor
EUcitizensandbymakingthebestuseoftheInternet.Moreover,theCommissionwillmeetMemberStates
bilaterallytodiscussissuesofimplementationandapplicationandwillusefullyitspowersundertheTreaty.
Todaymorethan8millionUnioncitizenshavetakenadvantageoftheirrighttomoveandresidefreelyandnow
liveinanotherMemberStateoftheUnion.Thefreemovementofcitizensconstitutesoneofthefundamental
freedomsoftheinternalmarketandisattheheartoftheEuropeanproject.Directive2004/38/ECcodifiedand
reviewedtheexistingCommunityinstrumentsinordertosimplifyandstrengthentherightoffreemovementand
residenceforUnioncitizensandtheirfamilymembers.Asageneralremark,theCommissionrecallsthatthe
Directivemustbeinterpretedandappliedinaccordancewithfundamentalrights[5],inparticulartherightto
respectforprivateandfamilylife,theprincipleofnondiscrimination,therightsofthechildandtherighttoan
effectiveremedyasguaranteedintheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights(ECHR)andasreflectedintheEU
CharterofFundamentalRights.
ThefreedomofmovementofpersonsisoneofthefoundationsoftheEU.Consequentlyderogationsfromthat
principlemustbeinterpretedstrictly[6].However,therightoffreemovementwithintheEUisnotunlimitedand
carrieswithitobligationsonthepartofitsbeneficiaries,whichimpliestoobeythelawsoftheirhostcountry.
2.EUCITIZENSANDTHEIRTHIRDCOUNTRYFAMILYMEMBERSENTRYANDRESIDENCE
TheDirective[7]appliesonlytoEUcitizenswhomovetoorresideinaMemberStateotherthanthatofwhichthey
areanational,andtotheirfamilymemberswhoaccompanyorjointhem.
T.,athirdcountrynational,residesinthehostMemberStateforsometime.Shewantstobejoinedtherebyher
thirdcountryspouse.AsnoEUcitizenisinvolved,thecouplecannotbenefitfromtherightsundertheDirective
anditremainsfullyuptotheMemberStateconcernedtolaydownrulesontherightofthirdcountryspousesto
joinotherthirdcountrynationals,takingdueaccountofotherinstrumentsofCommunitylaw,ifapplicable.
EUcitizensresidingintheMemberStateoftheirnationalitydonotnormallybenefitfromtherightsgrantedby
Communitylawonfreemovementofpersonsandtheirthirdcountryfamilymembersremaintobecoveredby
nationalimmigrationrules.However,EUcitizenswhoreturntotheirhomeMemberStateafterhavingresidedin
anotherMemberState[8]andincertaincircumstancesalsothoseEUcitizenswhohaveexercisedtheirrightsto
freemovementinanotherMemberStatewithoutresidingthere[9](forexamplebyprovidingservicesinanother
MemberStatewithoutresidingthere)benefitaswellfromtherulesonfreemovementofpersons.
P.residesintheMemberStateofhisnationality.HelikesitthereandhasnotresidedinanotherMemberState
before.Whenhewantstobringhisthirdcountryspouse,thecouplecannotbenefitfromtherightsunderthe
DirectiveanditremainsfullyuptotheMemberStateconcernedtolaydownrulesontherightofthirdcountry
spousestojoinitsownnationals.
FrontierworkersarecoveredbyCommunitylawinbothcountries(asamigrantworkerintheMemberStateof
employmentandasaselfsufficientpersonintheMemberStateofresidence).
2.1.Familymembersandotherbeneficiaries
2.1.1.Spousesandpartners
Marriagesvalidlycontractedanywhereintheworldmustbeinprinciplerecognizedforthepurposeofthe
applicationoftheDirective.Forcedmarriages,inwhichoneorbothpartiesismarriedwithouthisorherconsent
oragainsthisorherwill,arenotprotectedbyinternational[10]orCommunitylaw.Forcedmarriagesmustbe
distinguishedfromarrangedmarriages,wherebothpartiesfullyandfreelyconsenttothemarriage,althougha
thirdpartytakesaleadingroleinthechoiceofpartner,andfrommarriagesofconvenience,definedinSection4.2
below.
MemberStatesarenotobligedtorecognisepolygamousmarriages,contractedlawfullyinathirdcountry,which
maybeinconflictwiththeirownlegalorder[11].Thisiswithoutprejudicetotheobligationtotakedueaccount
ofthebestinterestsofchildrenofsuchmarriages.
TheDirectivemustbeappliedinaccordancewiththenondiscriminationprincipleenshrinedinparticularinArticle
21oftheEUCharter.
PartnerswithwhomanEUcitizenhasadefactodurablerelationship,dulyattested,arecoveredbyArticle3(2)(b).
PersonswhoderivetheirrightsundertheDirectivefrombeingdurablepartnersmayberequiredtopresent
documentaryevidencethattheyarepartnersofanEUcitizenandthatthepartnershipisdurable.Evidencemaybe
adducedbyanyappropriatemeans.
TherequirementofdurabilityoftherelationshipmustbeassessedinthelightoftheobjectiveoftheDirectiveto
maintaintheunityofthefamilyinabroadsense[12].Nationalrulesondurabilityofpartnershipcanrefertoa
minimumamountoftimeasacriterionforwhetherapartnershipcanbeconsideredasdurable.However,inthis
casenationalruleswouldneedtoforeseethatotherrelevantaspects(suchasforexampleajointmortgageto
buyahome)arealsotakenintoaccount.Anydenialofentryorresidencemustbefullyjustifiedinwritingand
opentoappeal.
2.1.2.Familymembersindirectline
Withoutprejudicetoissuesrelatedtorecognitionofdecisionsofnationalauthorities,thenotionofdirectrelatives
inthedescendingandascendinglinesextendstoadoptiverelationships[13]orminorsincustodyofapermanent
legalguardian.Fosterchildrenandfosterparentswhohavetemporarycustodymayhaverightsunderthe
Directive,dependinguponthestrengthofthetiesintheparticularcase.Thereisnorestrictionastothedegreeof
relatedness.Nationalauthoritiesmayrequestevidenceoftheclaimedfamilyrelationship.
InimplementingtheDirective,MemberStatesmustalwaysactinthebestinterestsofthechild,asprovidedforin
theUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsoftheChildof20November1989.
2.1.3.Otherfamilymembers
Article3(2)(a)doesnotlaydownanyrestrictionsastothedegreeofrelatednesswhenreferringtootherfamily
members.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

2/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

2.1.4.Dependentfamilymembers
Accordingtothecaselaw[14]oftheCourt,thestatusofdependentfamilymemberistheresultofafactual
situationcharacterisedbythefactthatmaterialsupport[15]forthatfamilymemberisprovidedbytheEUcitizen
orbyhisspouse/partner.Thestatusofdependentfamilymembersdoesnotpresupposearighttomaintenance.
Thereisnoneedtoexaminewhetherthefamilymembersconcernedwouldintheorybeabletosupport
themselves,forexamplebytakinguppaidemployment.
Inordertodeterminewhetherfamilymembersaredependent,itmustbeassessedintheindividualcasewhether,
havingregardtotheirfinancialandsocialconditions,theyneedmaterialsupporttomeettheiressentialneedsin
theircountryoforiginorthecountryfromwhichtheycameatthetimewhentheyappliedtojointheEUcitizen
(i.e.notinthehostMemberStatewheretheEUcitizenresides).Initsjudgmentsontheconceptofdependency,
theCourtdidnotrefertoanylevelofstandardoflivingfordeterminingtheneedforfinancialsupportbytheEU
citizen[16].
TheDirectivedoesnotlaydownanyrequirementastotheminimumdurationofthedependencyortheamountof
materialsupportprovided,aslongasthedependencyisgenuineandstructuralincharacter.
Dependentfamilymembersarerequiredtopresentdocumentaryevidencethattheyaredependent.Evidencemay
beadducedbyanyappropriatemeans,asconfirmedbytheCourt[17].Wherethefamilymembersconcernedare
abletoprovideevidenceoftheirdependencybymeansotherthanacertifyingdocumentissuedbytherelevant
authorityofthecountryoforiginorthecountryfromwhichthefamilymembersarearriving,thehostMember
Statemaynotrefusetorecognisetheirrights.However,amereundertakingfromtheEUcitizentosupportthe
familymemberconcernedisnotsufficientinitselftoestablishtheexistenceofdependence.
InaccordancewithArticle3(2),MemberStateshaveacertaindegreeofdiscretioninlayingdowncriteriatobe
takenintoaccountwhendecidingwhethertogranttherightsundertheDirectiveto"otherdependentfamily
members".However,MemberStatesdonotenjoyunrestrictedlibertyinlayingdownsuchcriteria.Inorderto
maintaintheunityofthefamilyinabroadsense,thenationallegislationmustprovideforacarefulexaminationof
therelevantpersonalcircumstancesoftheapplicantsconcerned,takingintoconsiderationtheirrelationshipwith
theEUcitizenoranyothercircumstances,suchastheirfinancialorphysicaldependence,asstipulatedinRecital6.
AnynegativedecisionissubjecttoallthematerialandproceduralsafeguardsoftheDirective.Itmustbefully
justifiedinwritingandopentoappeal.
2.2.Entryandresidenceofthirdcountryfamilymembers
2.2.1.Entryvisas
AsprovidedinArticle5(2),MemberStatesmayrequirethirdcountryfamilymembersmovingwithorjoiningan
EUcitizentowhomtheDirectiveappliestohaveanentryvisa.Suchfamilymembershavenotonlytherightto
entertheterritoryoftheMemberState,butalsotherighttoobtainanentryvisa[18].Thisdistinguishesthem
fromotherthirdcountrynationals,whohavenosuchright.
Thirdcountryfamilymembersshouldbeissuedassoonaspossibleandonthebasisofanacceleratedprocedure
withafreeofchargeshorttermentryvisa.ByanalogywithArticle23oftheVisaCode[19]theCommission
considersthatdelaysofmorethanfourweeksarenotreasonable.TheauthoritiesoftheMemberStatesshould
guidethefamilymembersastothetypeofvisatheyshouldapplyfor,andtheycannotrequirethemtoapplyfor
longterm,residenceorfamilyreunificationvisas.MemberStatesmustgrantsuchfamilymemberseveryfacilityto
obtainthenecessaryvisas.MemberStatesmayusepremiumcalllinesorservicesofanexternalcompanytosetup
anappointmentbutmustofferthepossibilityofdirectaccesstotheconsulatetothirdcountryfamilymembers.
AstherighttobeissuedwithanentryvisaisderivedfromthefamilylinkwiththeEUcitizen,MemberStatesmay
requireonlythepresentationofavalidpassportandevidenceofthefamilylink[20](andalsodependency,serious
healthgrounds,durabilityofpartnerships,whereapplicable).Noadditionaldocuments,suchasaproofof
accommodation,sufficientresources,aninvitationletterorreturnticket,canberequired.
MemberStatesmayencourageintegrationofEUcitizensandtheirthirdcountryfamilymembersbyoffering
languageandothertargetedcoursesonavoluntarybasis[21].Noconsequencecanbeattachedtotherefusalto
attendthem.
ResidencecardsissuedunderArticle10oftheDirectivetoafamilymemberofanEUcitizenresidinginthehost
MemberState,includingthoseissuedbyotherMemberStates,exempttheirholdersfromthevisarequirement
whentheytraveltogetherwiththeEUcitizenorjoinhim/herinthehostMemberState.
ResidencecardsnotissuedundertheDirectivecanexempttheholderfromthevisarequirementunderSchengen
rules[22].
2.2.2.Residencecards
AsstipulatedinArticle10(1),therightofresidenceofthirdcountryfamilymembersisevidencedbytheissuingof
adocumentcalled"ResidencecardofafamilymemberofaUnioncitizen".Thedenominationofthisresidence
cardmustnotdeviatefromthewordingprescribedbytheDirectiveasdifferenttitleswouldmakeitmaterially
impossiblefortheresidencecardtoberecognisedinotherMemberStatesasexemptingitsholderfromthevisa
requirementunderArticle5(2).
Theformatoftheresidencecardisnotfixed,soMemberStatesarefreetolayitdownastheyseefit[23].
However,theresidencecardmustbeissuedasaselfstandingdocumentandnotinformofastickerina
passport,asthiscouldlimitthevalidityofthecardinviolationofArticle11(1).
Theresidencecardmustbeissuedwithinsixmonthsfromthedateofapplication.Thedeadlinemustbe
interpretedinlightofArticle10oftheECTreatyandthemaximumperiodofsixmonthsisjustifiedonlyincases
whereexaminationoftheapplicationinvolvespublicpolicyconsiderations[24].
Thelistofdocuments[25]tobepresentedwiththeapplicationforaresidencecardisexhaustive,asconfirmedby
Recital14.Noadditionaldocumentscanberequested.
MemberStatesmayrequirethatdocumentsbetranslated,notarisedorlegalisedwherethenationalauthority
concernedcannotunderstandthelanguageinwhichtheparticulardocumentiswritten,orhaveasuspicionabout
theauthenticityoftheissuingauthority.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

3/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

2.3.ResidenceofEUcitizensformorethanthreemonths
EUcitizenshavearightofresidenceinthehostMemberStateiftheyareeconomicallyactivethere.Studentsand
economicallyinactiveEUcitizensmusthavesufficientresourcesforthemselvesandtheirfamilymembersnotto
becomeaburdenonthesocialassistancesystemofthehostMemberStateduringtheirperiodofresidenceand
havecomprehensivesicknessinsurancecover.
Thelistofdocumentstobepresentedwiththeapplicationforresidenceisexhaustive.Noadditionaldocuments
canberequested.
2.3.1.Sufficientresources
ThenotionofsufficientresourcesmustbeinterpretedinthelightoftheobjectiveoftheDirective,whichisto
facilitatefreemovement,aslongasthebeneficiariesoftherightofresidencedonotbecomeanunreasonable
burdenonthesocialassistancesystemofthehostMemberState.
ThefirststeptoassesstheexistenceofsufficientresourcesshouldbewhethertheEUcitizen(andfamilymembers
whoderivetheirrightofresidencefromhimorher)wouldmeetthenationalcriteriatobegrantedthebasicsocial
assistancebenefit.
EUcitizenshavesufficientresourceswheretheleveloftheirresourcesishigherthanthethresholdunderwhicha
minimumsubsistencebenefitisgrantedinthehostMemberState.Wherethiscriterionisnotapplicable,the
minimumsocialsecuritypensionshouldbetakenintoaccount.
Article8(4)prohibitsMemberStatesfromlayingdownafixedamounttoberegardedas"sufficientresources",
eitherdirectlyorindirectly,belowwhichtherightofresidencecanbeautomaticallyrefused.Theauthoritiesofthe
MemberStatesmusttakeintoaccountthepersonalsituationoftheindividualconcerned.Resourcesfromathird
personmustbeaccepted[26].
Nationalauthoritiescan,whennecessary,undertakechecksastotheexistenceoftheresources,theirlawfulness,
amountandavailability.Theresourcesdonothavetobeperiodicandcanbeintheformofaccumulatedcapital.
Theevidenceofsufficientresourcescannotbelimited[27].
Inassessingwhetheranindividualwhoseresourcescannolongerberegardedassufficientandwhowasgranted
theminimumsubsistencebenefitisorhasbecomeanunreasonableburden,theauthoritiesoftheMemberStates
mustcarryoutaproportionalitytest.Tothisend,MemberStatesmaydevelopforexampleapointsbasedscheme
asanindicator.Recital16ofDirective2004/38providesthreesetsofcriteriaforthispurpose:
(1)duration
Forhowlongisthebenefitbeinggranted?
Outlook:isitlikelythattheEUcitizenwillgetoutofthesafetynetsoon?
HowlonghastheresidencelastedinthehostMemberState?
(2)personalsituation
WhatisthelevelofconnectionoftheEUcitizenandhis/herfamilymemberswiththesocietyofthehostMember
State?
Arethereanyconsiderationspertainingtoage,stateofhealth,familyandeconomicsituationthatneedtobe
takenintoaccount?
(3)amount
Totalamountofaidgranted?
DoestheEUcitizenhaveahistoryofrelyingheavilyonsocialassistance?
DoestheEUcitizenhaveahistoryofcontributingtothefinancingofsocialassistanceinthehostMemberState?
Aslongasthebeneficiariesoftherightofresidencedonotbecomeanunreasonableburdenonthesocial
assistancesystemofthehostMemberState,theycannotbeexpelledforthisreason[28].
Onlyreceiptofsocialassistancebenefitscanbeconsideredrelevanttodeterminingwhetherthepersonconcerned
isaburdenonthesocialassistancesystem.
2.3.2.Sicknessinsurance
Anyinsurancecover,privateorpublic,contractedinthehostMemberStateorelsewhere,isacceptablein
principle,aslongasitprovidescomprehensivecoverageanddoesnotcreateaburdenonthepublicfinancesof
thehostMemberState.Inprotectingtheirpublicfinanceswhileassessingthecomprehensivenessofsickness
insurancecover,MemberStatesmustactincompliancewiththelimitsimposedbyCommunitylawandin
accordancewiththeprincipleofproportionality[29].
Pensionersfulfiltheconditionofcomprehensivesicknessinsurancecoveriftheyareentitledtohealthtreatment
onbehalfoftheMemberStatewhichpaystheirpension[30].
TheEuropeanHealthInsuranceCardofferssuchcomprehensivecoverwhentheEUcitizenconcerneddoesnot
movetheresidenceinthesenseofRegulation(EEC)No1408/71tothehostMemberStateandhastheintention
toreturn,e.g.studiesorpostingtoanotherMemberState.
3.RESTRICTIONSOFTHERIGHTTOMOVEANDRESIDEFREELYONGROUNDSOFPUBLICPOLICYORPUBLIC
SECURITY
ThissectionbuildsontheCommunicationof1999[31]onthespecialmeasuresconcerningthemovementand
residenceofEUcitizenswhicharejustifiedongroundsofpublicpolicy,publicsecurityorpublichealth.The
contentofthe1999Communicationisstillgenerallyvalid,evenifitreferstoDirective64/221,whichwas
repealedbyDirective2004/38.Thepurposeofthissectionistoupdatethecontentofthe1999Communicationin
thelightoftherecentcaselawoftheCourtandtoclarifycertainquestionsraisedduringtheprocessofthe
implementationoftheDirective.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

4/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

FreedomofmovementforpersonsisoneofthefoundationsoftheEU.Consequentlytheprovisionsgrantingthat
freedommustbegivenabroadinterpretation,whereasderogationsfromthatprinciplemustbeinterpreted
strictly[32].
3.1.Publicpolicyandpublicsecurity
MemberStatesmayrestrictthefreedomofmovementofEUcitizensongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity.
ChapterVIoftheDirectiveappliestoanyactiontakenongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecuritywhichaffects
therightofpersonscomingundertheDirectivetoenterandresidefreelyinthehostMemberStateunderthe
sameconditionsasthenationalsofthatState[33].
MemberStatesretainthefreedomtodeterminetherequirementsofpublicpolicyandpublicsecurityinaccordance
withtheirneeds,whichcanvaryfromoneMemberStatetoanotherandfromoneperiodtoanother.However,
whentheydosointhecontextoftheapplicationoftheDirective,theymustinterpretthoserequirements
strictly[34].
ItiscrucialthatMemberStatesdefineclearlytheprotectedinterestsofsociety,andmakeacleardistinction
betweenpublicpolicyandpublicsecurity.Thelattercannotbeextendedtomeasuresthatshouldbecoveredby
theformer.
Publicsecurityisgenerallyinterpretedtocoverbothinternalandexternalsecurity[35]alongthelinesof
preservingtheintegrityoftheterritoryofaMemberStateanditsinstitutions.Publicpolicyisgenerallyinterpreted
alongthelinesofpreventingdisturbanceofsocialorder.
EUcitizensmaybeexpelledonlyforconductpunishedbythelawofthehostMemberStateorwithregardto
whichothergenuineandeffectivemeasuresintendedtocombatsuchconductweretaken,asconfirmedbythe
caselaw[36]oftheCourt.
Inanycase,failuretocomplywiththeregistrationrequirementisnotofsuchanatureastoconstituteinitself
conductthreateningpublicpolicyandpublicsecurityandcannotthereforebyitselfjustifytheexpulsionofthe
person[37].
3.2.Personalconductandthethreat
Restrictivemeasuresmaybetakenonlyonacasebycasebasiswherethepersonalconductofanindividual
representsagenuine,presentandsufficientlyseriousthreataffectingoneofthefundamentalinterestsofthe
societyofthehostMemberState[38].Restrictivemeasurescannotbebasedsolelyonconsiderationspertainingto
theprotectionofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurityadvancedbyanotherMemberState[39].
Communitylawprecludestheadoptionofrestrictivemeasuresongeneralpreventivegrounds[40].Restrictive
measuresmustbebasedonanactualthreatandcannotbejustifiedmerelybyageneralrisk[41].Restrictive
measuresfollowingacriminalconvictioncannotbeautomaticandmusttakeintoaccountthepersonalconductof
theoffenderandthethreatthatitrepresentsfortherequirementsofpublicpolicy[42].Groundsextraneoustothe
personalconductofanindividualcannotbeinvoked.Automaticexpulsionsarenotallowedunderthe
Directive[43].
Individualscanhavetheirrightsrestrictedonlyiftheirpersonalconductrepresentsathreat,i.e.indicatesthe
likelihoodofaseriousprejudicetotherequirementsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity.
Athreatthatisonlypresumedisnotgenuine.Thethreatmustbepresent.Pastconductmaybetakeninto
accountonlywherethereisalikelihoodofreoffending[44].Thethreatmustexistatthemomentwhenthe
restrictivemeasureisadoptedbythenationalauthoritiesorreviewedbythecourts[45].Suspensionofsentence
constitutesanimportantfactorintheassessmentofthethreatasitsuggeststhattheindividualconcernedno
longerrepresentsarealdanger.
Presentmembershipofanorganisationmaybetakenintoaccountwheretheindividualconcernedparticipatesin
theactivitiesoftheorganizationandidentifieswithitsaimsordesigns[46].MemberStatesdonothaveto
criminalizeortobantheactivitiesofanorganisationtobeinapositiontorestricttherightsundertheDirective,
aslongassomeadministrativemeasurestocounteracttheactivitiesofthatorganisationareinplace.Past
associations[47]cannot,ingeneral,constitutepresentthreat.
Apreviouscriminalconvictioncanbetakenintoaccount,butonlyinsofarasthecircumstanceswhichgaveriseto
thatconvictionareevidenceofpersonalconductconstitutingapresentthreattotherequirementsofpublic
policy[48].Theauthoritiesmustbasetheirdecisiononanassessmentofthefutureconductoftheindividual
concerned.Thekindandnumberofpreviousconvictionsmustformasignificantelementinthisassessmentand
particularregardmustbehadtotheseriousnessandfrequencyofthecrimescommitted.Whilethedangerofre
offendingisofconsiderableimportance,aremotepossibilityofnewoffencesisnotsufficient[49].
A.andI.havefinishedservingtheirtwoyearsentenceforrobbery.Theauthoritiesassessifthepersonalconduct
ofthetwosistersrepresentsathreat,i.e.ifitinvolvesthelikelihoodofanewandseriousprejudicetopublic
policy.
ThiswasA.sfirstconviction.Shebehavedwellinprison.Sincesheleftprison,shehasfoundajob.The
authoritiesfindnothinginherbehaviourthatrepresentsagenuine,presentandsufficientlyseriousthreat.
AsforI.,thiswasalreadyherfourthconviction.Theseriousnessofhercrimeshasgrownovertime.Her
behaviourinprisonwasfarfromexemplaryandhertworequeststobereleasedonparolewererefused.Inless
thantwoweeks,sheiscaughtplanninganotherrobbery.TheauthoritiesconcludethatI.'sconductisathreatto
publicpolicy.
Incertaincircumstances,persistentpettycriminalitymayrepresentathreattopublicpolicy,despitethefactthat
anysinglecrime/offence,takenindividually,wouldbeinsufficienttorepresentasufficientlyseriousthreatas
definedabove.Nationalauthoritiesmustshowthatthepersonalconductoftheindividualconcernedrepresentsa
threattotherequirementsofpublicpolicy[50].Whenassessingtheexistenceofthethreattopublicpolicyinthese
cases,theauthoritiesmayinparticulartakeintoaccountthefollowingfactors:
thenatureoftheoffences
theirfrequency
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

5/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

damageorharmcaused.
Theexistenceofmultipleconvictionsisnotenough,initself.
3.3.Proportionalityassessment
ChapterVIoftheDirectivecannotberegardedasimposingapreconditiontotheacquisitionandmaintenanceofa
rightofentryandresidence,butasprovidingexclusivelythepossibilitytorestrict,wherejustified,theexerciseof
arightderiveddirectlyfromtheTreaty[51].
Oncetheauthoritieshaveestablishedthatthepersonalconductoftheindividualrepresentsathreatthatisserious
enoughtowarrantarestrictivemeasure,theymustcarryoutaproportionalityassessmenttodecidewhetherthe
personconcernedcanbedeniedentryorremovedongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity.
Nationalauthoritiesmustidentifyprotectedinterests.Itisinthelightoftheseintereststhattheymustcarryoutan
analysisofthecharacteristicsofthethreat.Thefollowingfactorscouldbetakenintoaccount:
degreeofsocialdangerresultingfromthepresenceofthepersonconcernedontheterritoryofthatMember
State
natureoftheoffendingactivities,theirfrequency,cumulativedangeranddamagecaused
timeelapsedsinceactscommittedandbehaviourofthepersonconcerned(NB:alsogoodbehaviourinprison
andpossiblereleaseonparolecouldbetakenintoaccount).
Thepersonalandfamilysituationoftheindividualconcernedmustbeassessedcarefullywithaviewto
establishingwhethertheenvisagedmeasureisappropriateanddoesnotgobeyondwhatisstrictlynecessaryto
achievetheobjectivepursued,andwhethertherearelessstringentmeasurestoachievethatobjective.The
followingfactors,outlinedinanindicativelistinArticle28(1),shouldbetakenintoaccount[52]:
impactofexpulsionontheeconomic,personalandfamilylifeoftheindividual(includingonotherfamily
memberswhowouldhavetherighttoremaininthehostMemberState)
theseriousnessofthedifficultieswhichthespouse/partnerandanyoftheirchildrenriskfacinginthecountryof
originofthepersonconcerned
strengthofties(relatives,visits,languageskills)orlackoftieswiththeMemberStateoforiginandwiththe
hostMemberState(forexample,thepersonconcernedwasborninthehostMemberStateorlivedtherefroman
earlyage)
lengthofresidenceinthehostMemberState(thesituationofatouristisdifferentfromthesituationofsomeone
whohaslivedformanyyearsinthehostMemberState)
ageandstateofhealth.
3.4.Increasedprotectionagainstexpulsion
EUcitizensandtheirfamilymemberswhoarepermanentresidents(afterfiveyears)inthehostMemberStatecan
beexpelledonlyonseriousgroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity.EUcitizensresidingformorethanafter
tenyearsandchildrencanbeexpelledonlyonimperativegroundsofpublicsecurity(notpublicpolicy).There
mustbeacleardistinctionbetweennormal,seriousandimperativegroundsonwhichtheexpulsioncanbe
taken.
Asarule,MemberStatesarenotobligedtotaketimeactuallyspentbehindbarsintoaccountwhencalculatingthe
durationofresidenceunderArticle28wherenolinkswiththehostMemberStatearebuilt.
3.5.Urgency
UnderArticle30(3),thetimeallowedtoleavetheterritorymustbeatleastonemonth,saveindulysubstantiated
casesofurgency.Thejustificationofanurgentremovalmustbegenuineandproportionate[53].Inassessingthe
needtoreducethistimeincasesofurgency,theauthoritiesmusttakeintoaccounttheimpactofanimmediateor
urgentremovalonthepersonalandfamilylifeofthepersonconcerned(e.g.needtogivenoticeatwork,
terminatealease,needtoarrangeforpersonalbelongingstobesenttotheplaceofnewresidence,theeducation
ofchildren,etc.).Adoptinganexpulsionmeasureonimperativeorseriousgroundsdoesnotnecessarilymean
thatthereisurgency.Theassessmentofurgencymustbeclearlyandseparatelysubstantiated.
3.6.Proceduralsafeguards
Thepersonconcernedmustalwaysbenotifiedofanymeasuretakenongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublic
security,asrequiredbyArticle30.
Decisionsmustbefullyreasonedandlistallthespecificfactualandlegalgroundsonwhichtheyaretakensothat
thepersonconcernedmaytakeeffectivestepstoensurehisorherdefence[54]andnationalcourtsmayreview
thecaseinaccordancewiththerighttoaneffectiveremedy,whichisageneralprincipleofCommunitylaw
reflectedinArticle47oftheEUCharter.Inthisrespect,formsmaybeusedtonotifythedecisionsbutmust
alwaysallowforafulljustificationofthegroundsonwhichthedecisionwastaken(justindicatingoneormoreof
severaloptionsbytickingaboxisnotacceptable).
4.ABUSEANDFRAUD
Communitylawcannotbereliedincaseofabuse[55].Article35allowsMemberStatestotakeeffectiveand
necessarymeasurestofightagainstabuseandfraudinareasfallingwithinthematerialscopeofCommunitylaw
onfreemovementofpersonsbyrefusing,terminatingorwithdrawinganyrightconferredbytheDirectiveinthe
caseofabuseofrightsorfraud,suchasmarriagesofconvenience.Anysuchmeasuremustbeproportionateand
subjecttotheproceduralsafeguardsprovidedforintheDirective[56].
CommunitylawpromotesthemobilityofEUcitizensandprotectsthosewhohavemadeuseofit[57].Thereisno
abusewhereEUcitizensandtheirfamilymembersobtainarightofresidenceunderCommunitylawinaMember
StateotherthanthatoftheEUcitizensnationalityastheyarebenefitingfromanadvantageinherentinthe
exerciseoftherightoffreemovementprotectedbytheTreaty[58],regardlessofthepurposeoftheirmovetothat
State[59].Bythesametoken,CommunitylawprotectsEUcitizenswhoreturnhomeafterhavingexercisedtheir
freemovementrights.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

6/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

4.1.Conceptsofabuseandfraud
4.1.1.Fraud
ForthepurposesoftheDirective,fraudmaybedefinedasdeliberatedeceptionorcontrivancemadetoobtainthe
rightoffreemovementandresidenceundertheDirective.InthecontextoftheDirective,fraudislikelytobe
limitedtoforgeryofdocumentsorfalserepresentationofamaterialfactconcerningtheconditionsattachedtothe
rightofresidence.Personswhohavebeenissuedwitharesidencedocumentonlyasaresultoffraudulent
conductinrespectofwhichtheyhavebeenconvicted,mayhavetheirrightsundertheDirectiverefused,
terminatedorwithdrawn[60].
4.1.2.Abuse
ForthepurposesoftheDirective,abusemaybedefinedasanartificialconductenteredintosolelywiththe
purposeofobtainingtherightoffreemovementandresidenceunderCommunitylawwhich,albeitformally
observingoftheconditionslaiddownbyCommunityrules,doesnotcomplywiththepurposeofthoserules[61].
4.2.Marriagesofconvenience
Recital28definesmarriagesofconvenienceforthepurposesoftheDirectiveasmarriagescontractedforthesole
purposeofenjoyingtherightoffreemovementandresidenceundertheDirectivethatsomeonewouldnothave
otherwise.Amarriagecannotbeconsideredasamarriageofconveniencesimplybecauseitbringsanimmigration
advantage,orindeedanyotheradvantage.ThequalityoftherelationshipisimmaterialtotheapplicationofArticle
35.
Thedefinitionofmarriagesofconveniencecanbeextendedbyanalogytootherformsofrelationshipscontracted
forthesolepurposeofenjoyingtherightoffreemovementandresidence,suchas(registered)partnershipof
convenience,fakeadoptionorwhereanEUcitizendeclarestobeafatherofathirdcountrychildtoconvey
nationalityandarightofresidenceonthechildanditsmother,knowingthatheisnotitsfatherandnotwillingto
assumeparentalresponsibilities.
MeasurestakenbyMemberStatestofightagainstmarriagesofconveniencemaynotbesuchastodeterEU
citizensandtheirfamilymembersfrommakinguseoftheirrighttofreemovementorundulyencroachontheir
legitimaterights.TheymustnotunderminetheeffectivenessofCommunitylawordiscriminateongroundsof
nationality.
WheninterpretingthenotionofabuseinthecontextoftheDirective,dueattentionmustbegiventothestatusof
theEUcitizen.InaccordancewiththeprincipleofsupremacyofCommunitylaw,theassessmentofwhether
CommunitylawwasabusedmustbecarriedoutintheframeworkofCommunitylaw,andnotwithregardto
nationalmigrationlaws.TheDirectivedoesnotpreventMemberStatesfrominvestigatingindividualcaseswhere
thereisawellfoundedsuspicionofabuse.However,Communitylawprohibitssystematicchecks[62].Member
Statesmayrelyonpreviousanalysesandexperienceshowingaclearcorrelationbetweenprovencasesofabuse
andcertaincharacteristicsofsuchcases.
Inordertoavoidcreatingunnecessaryburdensandobstacles,itispossibletoidentifyasetofindicativecriteria
suggestingthatthereisunlikelytobeanabuseofCommunityrights:
thethirdcountryspousewouldhavenoproblemobtainingarightofresidenceinhis/herowncapacityorhas
alreadylawfullyresidedintheEUcitizensMemberStatebeforehand
thecouplewasinarelationshipforalongtime
thecouplehadacommondomicile/householdforalongtime[63]
thecouplehavealreadyenteredaseriouslongtermlegal/financialcommitmentwithsharedresponsibilities
(mortgagetobuyahome,etc)
themarriagehaslastedforalongtime.
MemberStatesmaydefineasetofindicativecriteriasuggestingthepossibleintentiontoabusetherights
conferredbytheDirectiveforthesolepurposeofcontraveningnationalimmigrationlaws.Nationalauthorities
mayinparticulartakeintoaccountthefollowingfactors:
thecouplehavenevermetbeforetheirmarriage
thecoupleareinconsistentabouttheirrespectivepersonaldetails,aboutthecircumstancesoftheirfirstmeeting,
oraboutotherimportantpersonalinformationconcerningthem
thecoupledonotspeakalanguageunderstoodbyboth
evidenceofasumofmoneyorgiftshandedoverinorderforthemarriagetobecontracted(withtheexception
ofmoneyorgiftsgivenintheformofadowryincultureswherethisiscommonpractice)
thepasthistoryofoneorbothofthespousescontainsevidenceofpreviousmarriagesofconvenienceorother
formsofabuseandfraudtoacquirearightofresidence
developmentoffamilylifeonlyaftertheexpulsionorderwasadopted
thecoupledivorcesshortlyafterthethirdcountrynationalinquestionhasacquiredarightofresidence.
Theabovecriteriashouldbeconsideredpossibletriggersforinvestigation,withoutanyautomaticinferencesfrom
resultsorsubsequentinvestigations.MemberStatesmaynotrelyononesoleattributedueattentionhastobe
giventoallthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase.Theinvestigationmayinvolveaseparateinterviewwitheach
ofthetwospouses.
S.,athirdcountrynational,wasorderedtoleaveinonemonthasshehadoverstayedhertouristvisa.Aftertwo
weeks,shemarriedO.,anEUnationalwhohadjustarrivedtothehostMemberState.Theauthoritiessuspectthat
themarriagemighthavebeenconcludedonlytoavoidexpulsion.TheycontacttheauthoritiesinO.sMember
Stateandfindoutthataftertheweddinghisfamilyshopwasfinallyabletopayadebtof5000EUR,whichithad
beenunabletorepayfortwoyears.
Theyinvitethenewlywedsforaninterview,duringwhichtheyfindoutthatO.hasmeanwhilealreadyleftthe
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

7/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

hostMemberStatetoreturnhometohisjob,thatthecoupleisnotabletocommunicateinacommonlanguage
andthattheymetforthefirsttimeoneweekbeforethemarriage.Therearestrongindicationsthatthecouple
mayhavemarriedwiththesolepurposeofcontraveningnationalimmigrationlaws.
TheburdenofproofliesontheauthoritiesoftheMemberStatesseekingtorestrictrightsundertheDirective.The
authoritiesmustbeabletobuildaconvincingcasewhilerespectingallthematerialsafeguardsdescribedinthe
previoussection.Onappeal,itisforthenationalcourtstoverifytheexistenceofabuseinindividualcases,
evidenceofwhichmustbeadducedinaccordancewiththerulesofnationallaw,providedthattheeffectivenessof
Communitylawisnottherebyundermined[64].
Investigationsmustbecarriedoutinaccordancewithfundamentalrights,inparticularwithArticles8(rightto
respectforprivateandfamilylife)and12(righttomarry)oftheECHR(Articles7and9oftheEUCharter).
Ongoinginvestigationofsuspectedcasesofmarriagesofconveniencecannotjustifyderogationfromtherightsof
thirdcountryfamilymembersundertheDirective,suchastheprohibitionoftherighttowork,seizureofpassport
ordelyoftheissueofaresidencecardwithinsixmonthsfromthedateofapplication.Theserightscanbe
withdrawnatanytimeasaresultofsubsequentinvestigations.
4.3.Otherformsofabuse
AbusecouldalsooccurwhenEUcitizens,unabletobejoinedbytheirthirdcountryfamilymembersintheir
MemberStateoforiginbecauseoftheapplicationofnationalimmigrationrulespreventingit,movetoanother
MemberStatewiththesolepurposetoevade,uponreturningtotheirhomeMemberState,thenationallawthat
frustratedtheirfamilyreunificationefforts,invokingtheirrightsunderCommunitylaw.
ThedefiningcharacteristicsofthelinebetweengenuineandabusiveuseofCommunitylawshouldbebasedon
theassessmentofwhethertheexerciseofCommunityrightsinaMemberStatefromwhichtheEUcitizensand
theirfamilymembersreturnwasgenuineandeffective.Insuchcase,EUcitizensandtheirfamiliesareprotected
byCommunitylawonfreemovementofpersons.Thisassessmentcanonlybemadeonacasebycasebasis.If,
inaconcretecaseofreturn,theuseofCommunityrightswasgenuineandeffective,theMemberStateoforigin
shouldnotinquireintothepersonalmotivesthattriggeredthepreviousmove.
Whennecessary,MemberStatesmaydefineasetofindicativecriteriatoassesswhetherresidenceinthehost
MemberStatewasgenuineandeffective.Nationalauthoritiesmayinparticulartakeintoaccountthefollowing
factors:
thecircumstancesunderwhichtheEUcitizenconcernedmovedtothehostMemberState(previousunsuccessful
attemptstoacquireresidenceforathirdcountryspouseundernationallaw,jobofferinthehostMemberState,
capacityinwhichtheEUcitizenresidesinthehostMemberState)
degreeofeffectivenessandgenuinenessofresidenceinthehostMemberState(envisagedandactualresidence
inthehostMemberState,effortsmadetoestablishinthehostMemberState,includingnationalregistration
formalitiesandsecuringaccommodation,enrollingchildrenataneducationalestablishment)
circumstancesunderwhichtheEUcitizenconcernedmovedbackhome(returnimmediatelyaftermarryinga
thirdcountrynationalinanotherMemberState).
Theabovecriteriashouldbeconsideredpossibletriggersforinvestigation,withoutanyautomaticinferencesfrom
resultsorsubsequentinvestigations.Inassessingwhethertheexerciseoftherighttomoveandresidefreelyin
anotherMemberStateoftheEUwasgenuineandeffective,nationalauthoritiesmaynotrelyonasoleattribute
butmustpaydueattentiontoallthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase.Theymustassesstheconductof
personsconcernedinthelightoftheobjectivespursuedbyCommunitylawandactonthebasisofobjective
evidence[65].
J.returnshomefromanotherMemberStatewithS.,histhirdcountryspouse.S.unsuccessfulyattemptedtwiceto
acquireresidenceinJ.sMemberState.J.continuedtoworkhomeduringhisallegedresidenceinanotherMember
State.
TheauthoritiescontacttheauthoritiesofthehostMemberStateandfindoutthatJ.returnedhomeonlyafter
threeweeks.Thecouplestayedinatouristhotelandpaidforthethreeweeksofaccommodationinadvance.
Takingallofthisintoaccount,J.andS.donotbenefitfromtheprovisionsoftheDirective.
ItcannotbeinferredthattheresidenceinthehostMemberStateisnotgenuineandeffectiveonlybecauseanEU
citizenmaintainssometiestothehomeMemberState,allthemoreifhisstatusinthehostcountryisunstable
(e.g.aworkcontractoflimitedduration).Themerefactthatapersonconsciouslyplaceshimselfinasituation
conferringarightdoesnotinitselfconstituteasufficientbasisforassumingthatthereisabuse[66].
Allrelevantconsiderationssetoutaboveoninvestigation,materialandproceduralsafeguards,cooperation
betweenMemberStatesrelatingtomarriagesofconvenienceapplymutatismutandis.
4.4.Measuresandsanctionsagainstabuseandfraud
Article35entitlesMemberStatestoadoptthenecessarymeasuresincasesofabuseofrightsorfraud.These
measurescanbetakenatanypointoftimeandmayentail:
therefusaltoconferrightsunderCommunitylawonfreemovement(e.g.toissueanentryvisaoraresidence
card)
theterminationorwithdrawalofrightsunderCommunitylawonfreemovement(e.g.thedecisiontoterminate
validityofaresidencecardandtoexpelthepersonconcernedwhoacquiredrightsbyabuseorfraud).
CommunitylawdoesnotatpresentprovideforanyspecificsanctionsMemberStatesmaytakeintheframework
offightagainstabuseorfraud.MemberStatesmaylaydownsanctionsundercivil(e.g.cancellingtheeffectsofa
provenmarriageofconvenienceontherightofresidence),administrativeorcriminallaw(fineorimprisonment),
providedthesesanctionsareeffective,nondiscriminatoryandproportionate.
[1]COM(2008)840final
[2]Directive2004/38/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof29April2004ontherightofcitizens
oftheUnionandtheirfamilymemberstomoveandresidefreelywithintheterritoryoftheMemberStates
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

8/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

[3]ConclusionsoftheJHACouncilmeetingsinNovember2008andFebruary2009
[4]ResolutionoftheEuropeanParliamentof2April2009ontheapplicationofDirective2004/38/EC
(2008/2184(INI))
[5]CasesC482/01andC493/01OrfanopoulosandOliveri(paras9798)andC127/08Metock(para79)
[6]Cases139/85Kempf(para13)andC33/07Jipa(para23)
[7]Article3(1)
[8]CasesC370/90SinghandC291/05Eind
[9]CaseC60/00Carpenter
[10]Interalia,Article16(2)oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsorArticle16(1)(b)oftheConventionto
EliminateAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen
[11]ECtHRcaseAlilouchElAbassevNetherlands(6January1992)
[12]Recital6
[13]AdoptivechildrenarefullyprotectedbyArticle8oftheECHR(ECtHRcasesXvBelgiumandNetherlands(10
July19750,XvFrance(5October1982)aswellasX,YandZv.UK(22April1997)).
[14]Cases316/85Lebon(para22)andC1/05Jia(paras3637)
[15]Emotionaldependenceisnottakenintoaccount,seeAGTizzanoincaseC200/02ZhuandChen,para84
[16]Thetestofdependencyshouldprimarilybewhether,inthelightoftheirpersonalcircumstances,thefinancial
meansofthefamilymemberspermitthemtoliveattheminimumlevelofsubsistenceinthecountryoftheir
normalresidence(AGGeelhoedincaseC1/05Jia,para96).
[17]CasesC215/03Oulane(para53)andC1/05Jia(para41)
[18]CaseC503/03CommissionvSpain(para42)
[19]COM(2006)403final/2.
[20]Articles8(5)and10(2)
[21]Cf.theCommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropean
EconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommitteeoftheRegionsonmultilingualism:anassetforEuropeanda
sharedcommitmentCOM(2008)566.
[22]Article5ofRegulation(EC)No562/2006establishingaCommunityCodeontherulesgoverningthe
movementofpersonsacrossborders(SchengenBordersCode)
[23]CouncilRegulation(EC)No1030/2002layingdownauniformformatforresidencepermitsforthirdcountry
nationalsdoesnotapplytofamilymembersofEUcitizensexercisingtheirrighttofreemovement(Article5)and
Article21oftheConventionimplementingtheSchengenAgreement.
[24]COM(1999)372(point3.2)
[25]Article10(2)
[26]CaseC408/03CommissionvBelgium(para40etseq.)
[27]CaseC424/98CommissionvItaly(para37)
[28]Article14(3)
[29]CaseC413/99Baumbast(paras8994)
[30]Articles27,28and28aofRegulation(EEC)No1408/71ontheapplicationofsocialsecurityschemesto
employedpersons,toselfemployedpersonsandtothemembersoftheirfamiliesmovingwithintheCommunity.
Asof1March2010,Regulation(EC)No883/04willreplaceitbutthesameprincipleswillapply.
[31]COM(1999)372
[32]Cases139/85Kempf(para13)andC33/07Jipa(para23)
[33]Cases36/75Rutili(paras821)and30/77Bouchereau(paras624)
[34]Cases36/75Rutili(para27),30/77Bouchereau(para33)andC33/07Jipa(para23)
[35]CasesC423/98Albore(para18etseq.)andC285/98Kreil(para15)
[36]Cases115/81AdouiandCornuaille(paras59)andC268/99Jany(para61)
[37]Case48/75Royer(para51).
[38]Allcriteriaarecumulative.
[39]CasesC33/07Jipa(para25)andC503/03CommissionvSpain(para62)
[40]Case67/74Bonsignore(paras57)
[41]Generalpreventioninspecificcircumstances,suchassportevents,iscoveredinthe1999Communication(cfr
point3.3).
[42]CasesC348/96Calfa(paras1727)and67/74Bonsignore(paras57)
[43]CaseC408/03CommissionvBelgium(paras6872).
[44]Case30/77Bouchereau(paras2530)
[45]CasesC482/01andC493/01OrfanopoulosandOliveri(para82)
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

9/10

24/04/2015

EURLex52009DC0313ENEURLex

[46]Case41/74vanDuyn(para17etseq.)
[47]Ibid
[48]CasesC482/01and493/01OrfanopoulosandOliveri(paras82and100)andC50/06Commissionv
Netherlands(paras4245)
[49]Forexample,thedangerofreoffendingmaybeconsideredgreaterinthecaseofdrugdependencyifthereis
ariskoffurthercriminaloffencescommittedinordertofundthedependency:AGStixHacklinJoinedcasesC
482/01andC493/01OrfanopoulosandOliveri
[50]CaseC349/06Polat(para35)
[51]Case321/87CommissionvBelgium(para10)
[52]Inrelationtothefundamentalrights,seethecaselawoftheECtHRincasesBerrehab,Moustaquim,
Beldjoudi,Boujlifa,ElBoujaidiandDalia.
[53]AGStixHacklincaseC441/02CommissionvGermany
[54]Case36/75Rutili(paras3739)
[55]Cases33/74vanBinsbergen(para13),C370/90Singh(para24)andC212/97Centros(paras2425)
[56]CaseC127/08Metock(paras7475)
[57]CasesC370/90Singh,C291/05EindandC60/00Carpenter
[58]CasesC212/97Centros(para27)andC147/03CommissionvAustria(paras6768)
[59]CasesC109/01Akrich(para55)andC1/05Jia(para31)
[60]CasesC285/95Kol(para29)andC63/99Gloszczuk(para75)
[61]CasesC110/99EmslandStrke(para52etseq.)andC212/97Centros(para25)
[62]Theprohibitionincludesnotonlychecksonallmigrants,butalsochecksonwholeclassesofmigrants(e.g.
thosefromagivenethnicorigin).
[63]CommunitylawdoesnotrequirethirdcountryfamilyspousestolivewiththeEUcitizentoqualifyforaright
ofresidencecase267/83Diatta(para15etseq.).
[64]CasesC110/99EmslandStrke(para54)andC215/03Oulane(para56)
[65]CaseC206/94BrennetvPaletta(para25)
[66]CaseC212/97Centros(para27)

Top

http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0313

10/10