# C_2016232EN.01000701.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami

(Case C-225/16)

(2016/C 232/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Mossa Ouhrami

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the period of five years mentioned therein is calculated:






  a. | from the moment at which the entry ban (or, with retroactive effect, the equivalent declaration of undesirability) was issued, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the period of five years mentioned therein is calculated:

1

a.

from the moment at which the entry ban (or, with retroactive effect, the equivalent declaration of undesirability) was issued, or

| b. | with effect from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of — essentially — the Member States of the European Union, or |
| --- | --- |

b.

with effect from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of — essentially — the Member States of the European Union, or

| c. | from some other point in time? |
| --- | --- |

c.

from some other point in time?

| 2. | Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive, having regard to the application of transitional law, be interpreted as meaning that decisions taken before that directive entered into force, the legal effect of which is that the addressee must remain outside the Netherlands for ten consecutive years, while the entry ban was determined having regard for all the relevant circumstances of the individual case and was open to challenge on legal grounds, no longer have any legal effect if the duration of that obligation, at the time by which that directive had to be implemented or at the time at which it was established that the person to whom that decision was addressed was present in the Netherlands, exceeded the period provided for in that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive, having regard to the application of transitional law, be interpreted as meaning that decisions taken before that directive entered into force, the legal effect of which is that the addressee must remain outside the Netherlands for ten consecutive years, while the entry ban was determined having regard for all the relevant circumstances of the individual case and was open to challenge on legal grounds, no longer have any legal effect if the duration of that obligation, at the time by which that directive had to be implemented or at the time at which it was established that the person to whom that decision was addressed was present in the Netherlands, exceeded the period provided for in that provision?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

1

---