# C_2021245EN.01001901.xml

| 24.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/19

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 February 2021

in Case E-1/20

Kerim v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE)

(Freedom of movement – Directive 2004/38/EC – Abuse – Marriages of convenience – Derived rights for third-country nationals)

(2021/C 245/15)

In Case E-1/20, Kerim v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation 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, and in particular Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with Article 7(2) and Article 35 thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen, and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 9 February 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | In order to determine whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 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 exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, it is necessary for the national authorities to establish, on the basis of a case-by-case examination, that at least one spouse in the marriage has essentially entered into it for the purpose of improperly obtaining the right of free movement and residence by a third-country national spouse rather than for the establishment of a genuine marriage. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to determine whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 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 exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, it is necessary for the national authorities to establish, on the basis of a case-by-case examination, that at least one spouse in the marriage has essentially entered into it for the purpose of improperly obtaining the right of free movement and residence by a third-country national spouse rather than for the establishment of a genuine marriage.

| 2. | For the determination of whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38 exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, facts must be established and assessed in their entirety, which includes taking into account the subjective intention of an EEA national for entering into a marriage with a third-country national. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the determination of whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38 exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, facts must be established and assessed in their entirety, which includes taking into account the subjective intention of an EEA national for entering into a marriage with a third-country national.

---