# C_2019348EN.01000701.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — BZ v Westerwaldkreis

(Case C-546/19)

(2019/C 348/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: BZ

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Westerwaldkreis

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Does an entry ban issued against a third-country national for purposes ‘not related to migration’ come within the scope of 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, (1) at any rate if the Member State has not made use of the option under Article 2(2)(b) of that directive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does an entry ban issued against a third-country national for purposes ‘not related to migration’ come within the scope of 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, (1) at any rate if the Member State has not made use of the option under Article 2(2)(b) of that directive?

| (b) | If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative: Does such an entry ban not come under Directive 2008/115/EC if the third-country national is already staying illegally regardless of an expulsion order issued against him, to which the entry ban is linked, and therefore in principle comes within the scope of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative: Does such an entry ban not come under Directive 2008/115/EC if the third-country national is already staying illegally regardless of an expulsion order issued against him, to which the entry ban is linked, and therefore in principle comes within the scope of the Directive?

| (c) | Do entry bans issued for purposes ‘not related to migration’ include entry bans issued in connection with an expulsion ordered for reasons of public safety and order (in this case: solely on general preventive grounds with the objective of combating terrorism)? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Do entry bans issued for purposes ‘not related to migration’ include entry bans issued in connection with an expulsion ordered for reasons of public safety and order (in this case: solely on general preventive grounds with the objective of combating terrorism)?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered to the effect that the present entry ban does come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC:






  (a) | Does the administrative annulment of the return decision (in this case: the removal warning) have the result that an entry ban, within the meaning of Article 3.6 of Directive 2008/115/EC, ordered at the same time becomes unlawful? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered to the effect that the present entry ban does come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC:

(a)

Does the administrative annulment of the return decision (in this case: the removal warning) have the result that an entry ban, within the meaning of Article 3.6 of Directive 2008/115/EC, ordered at the same time becomes unlawful?

| (b) | Does this legal consequence arise even if the administrative expulsion order preceding the return decision is or has become final? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does this legal consequence arise even if the administrative expulsion order preceding the return decision is or has become final?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---