# C_2011232EN.01001701.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 May 2011 — Hristo Byankov v Glaven Sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (MVR)

(Case C-249/11)

(2011/C 232/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hristo Byankov

Defendant: Glaven Sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (MVR)

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the facts of the main proceedings, does the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union require that a national provision of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a final administrative act may be annulled in order to put an end to an infringement of a fundamental right which has been established by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which right is also recognised in European Union law and concerns the freedom of movement enjoyed by nationals of the Member States — must also be applied with reference to the interpretation adopted by decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of provisions of EU law which are relevant to the restrictions on the exercise of the aforementioned right, where the administrative act must be annulled in order to put an end to the infringement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the facts of the main proceedings, does the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union require that a national provision of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a final administrative act may be annulled in order to put an end to an infringement of a fundamental right which has been established by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which right is also recognised in European Union law and concerns the freedom of movement enjoyed by nationals of the Member States — must also be applied with reference to the interpretation adopted by decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of provisions of EU law which are relevant to the restrictions on the exercise of the aforementioned right, where the administrative act must be annulled in order to put an end to the infringement?

| 2. | Does it follow from Article 31(1) and (3) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) 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 that, where a Member State has provided in its national law for a procedure for examining an administrative act which limits the right under Article 4(1) of the Directive, the competent administrative authority is required, at the request of the addressee of the administrative act, to examine that measure and to assess its legality with reference also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law governing the conditions and limitations applicable to the exercise of that right, so as to ensure that the limitation imposed on the right is not disproportionate at the time when the review decision is adopted, where the administrative act imposing the limitation is already final at that time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it follow from Article 31(1) and (3) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) 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 that, where a Member State has provided in its national law for a procedure for examining an administrative act which limits the right under Article 4(1) of the Directive, the competent administrative authority is required, at the request of the addressee of the administrative act, to examine that measure and to assess its legality with reference also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law governing the conditions and limitations applicable to the exercise of that right, so as to ensure that the limitation imposed on the right is not disproportionate at the time when the review decision is adopted, where the administrative act imposing the limitation is already final at that time?

| 3. | Do the provisions of the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38 permit the application of a national provision which provides for the imposition of a limitation on the freedom of movement, within the European Union, of a national of a Member State of the European Union, solely on account of the existence of an unsecured liability in excess of a certain amount laid down by law that is owed to a private individual (a commercial company), in the context of pending enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the claim, and without regard to the possibility, provided for in EU law, of the claim being recovered by an authority of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the provisions of the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38 permit the application of a national provision which provides for the imposition of a limitation on the freedom of movement, within the European Union, of a national of a Member State of the European Union, solely on account of the existence of an unsecured liability in excess of a certain amount laid down by law that is owed to a private individual (a commercial company), in the context of pending enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the claim, and without regard to the possibility, provided for in EU law, of the claim being recovered by an authority of another Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

---