# C_2017300EN.01001801.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.; other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-380/17)

(2017/C 300/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.

Appellants:

Other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Other parties:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) and to the judgment of 18 October 2012 in Nolan (Case C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by courts in the Netherlands on the interpretation of provisions of that directive in proceedings concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a person with subsidiary protection status, if that directive has, under Netherlands law, been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) and to the judgment of 18 October 2012 in Nolan (Case C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by courts in the Netherlands on the interpretation of provisions of that directive in proceedings concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a person with subsidiary protection status, if that directive has, under Netherlands law, been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status?

Nolan

| 2. | Does the system provided for by Council Directive 2003/86/EC ... preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for consideration for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1)?
  For the purpose of answering this question, does any relevance attach to the fact that it is possible, in the event of the aforementioned period being exceeded, to submit an application for family reunification, whether or not after a rejection, in which an assessment is made as to whether the requirements laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/86/EC have been met and in which the interests and circumstances indicated in Articles 5(5) and 17 of that directive are taken into account? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the system provided for by Council Directive 2003/86/EC ... preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for consideration for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1)?

For the purpose of answering this question, does any relevance attach to the fact that it is possible, in the event of the aforementioned period being exceeded, to submit an application for family reunification, whether or not after a rejection, in which an assessment is made as to whether the requirements laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/86/EC have been met and in which the interests and circumstances indicated in Articles 5(5) and 17 of that directive are taken into account?

---