# C_2019319EN.01001301.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht — Netherlands) — Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan and Kamalaranee Vethanayagam v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-680/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Community code on visas - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 5 - Member State competent for examining and deciding on a visa application - Article 8 - Representation arrangement - Article 32(3) - Appeal against a decision refusing a visa - Member State competent to decide on the appeal if there is a representation arrangement - Persons entitled to bring an appeal)

(2019/C 319/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan and Kamalaranee Vethanayagam

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as not allowing the sponsor to bring an appeal in his own name against a decision refusing a visa. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as not allowing the sponsor to bring an appeal in his own name against a decision refusing a visa.

| 2. | Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that, when there is a bilateral representation arrangement providing that the consular authorities of the representing Member State are entitled to take decisions refusing visas, it is for the competent authorities of that Member State to decide on appeals brought against a decision refusing a visa. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that, when there is a bilateral representation arrangement providing that the consular authorities of the representing Member State are entitled to take decisions refusing visas, it is for the competent authorities of that Member State to decide on appeals brought against a decision refusing a visa.

| 3. | A combined interpretation of Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, according to which an appeal against a decision refusing a visa must be conducted against the representing State, is compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A combined interpretation of Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, according to which an appeal against a decision refusing a visa must be conducted against the representing State, is compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---