# C_2021163EN.01001202.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-66/21)

(2021/C 163/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.T. E.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC (1) commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC (1) commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities?

| (b) | Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking?

| 2. | Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State?

| 3. | (a) | Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

(a)

Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article?

| (b) | Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19).

---