# C_2018063EN.01000502.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 14 November 2017 — E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-635/17)

(2018/C 063/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Directive 2003/86/EC (1) and to the Nolan judgment (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 Directive 2003/86/EC 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?
  (see the order for reference made by the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Council of State) of 21 June 2017, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1609; registered with the Court of Justice as Case C-380/17); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Directive 2003/86/EC (1) and to the Nolan judgment (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 Directive 2003/86/EC 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

Nolan

(see the order for reference made by the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Council of State) of 21 June 2017, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1609; registered with the Court of Justice as Case C-380/17);

| 2. | Must Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding the rejection of a refugee’s application for family reunification solely because of the fact that that refugee has not provided any official documentary evidence of the family relationship with his application,
  or
  must Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding the rejection of a refugee’s application for family reunification on the sole ground of a lack of any official documentary evidence of the family relationship only if that refugee has given a plausible explanation for the fact that he has not provided such documentary evidence and for his statement that he is not yet able to provide such documentary evidence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding the rejection of a refugee’s application for family reunification solely because of the fact that that refugee has not provided any official documentary evidence of the family relationship with his application,

or

must Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding the rejection of a refugee’s application for family reunification on the sole ground of a lack of any official documentary evidence of the family relationship only if that refugee has given a plausible explanation for the fact that he has not provided such documentary evidence and for his statement that he is not yet able to provide such documentary evidence?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

1

---