# C_2017129EN.01000701.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger

(Case C-89/17)

(2017/C 129/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Applicant:

Defendant: Rozanne Banger

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality?

| 2. | Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (‘the Directive’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (‘the Directive’)?

1

| 3. | Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive?

| 4. | Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC 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 OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77

1

---