# C_2020234EN.01000301.xml

| 16.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/3

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett dated 3 April 2020 in the case of The Norwegian Government v L

(Case E-2/20)

(2020/C 234/03)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 3 April 2020 from Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of The Norwegian Government v L on the following questions:

| 1. | Is recital 27 of the preamble to Directive 2004/38/EC to be interpreted as meaning that expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent exclusion order is contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC, even if the person in question has the possibility under Article 32(1) of applying to have the exclusion order lifted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is recital 27 of the preamble to Directive 2004/38/EC to be interpreted as meaning that expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent exclusion order is contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC, even if the person in question has the possibility under Article 32(1) of applying to have the exclusion order lifted?

| 2. | How are the words ‘material change’ in Article 32(1) to be understood when the expulsion is based on personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How are the words ‘material change’ in Article 32(1) to be understood when the expulsion is based on personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national?

| 3. | If it is assumed that the personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national justifying the expulsion will not change, will expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases be contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If it is assumed that the personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national justifying the expulsion will not change, will expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases be contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC?

| 4. | How is the requirement in Article 27(2), under which expulsion must be a proportionate measure, to be understood in relation to the expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent entry prohibition when the person in question has a family and children in the country from which s/he is being expelled? Does the Directive preclude expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How is the requirement in Article 27(2), under which expulsion must be a proportionate measure, to be understood in relation to the expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent entry prohibition when the person in question has a family and children in the country from which s/he is being expelled? Does the Directive preclude expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases?

| 5. | How much weight should be attached to the absence of criminal offences whilst serving a sentence and positive development following release on probation in the determination of whether there is ‘a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’ as referred to in Article 27(2)? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How much weight should be attached to the absence of criminal offences whilst serving a sentence and positive development following release on probation in the determination of whether there is ‘a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’ as referred to in Article 27(2)?

---