Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:370
Date: 2026-04-30
Language of the case: Finnish

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 31 December 2024 – A and Others (Case C-906/24, Sirto) 1 Language of the case: Finnish Referring court Korkein hallinto-oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Appellants: A, B, C, D, E, F and G Other party: Maahanmuuttovirasto Questions referred Must Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC 1 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 be interpreted as meaning that the children of a Union citizen who are enrolled at a primary school in the host Member State and the parent who has actual custody of those children do not lose their right of residence until the children complete their studies, if the Union citizen concerned has been the subject of an expulsion order issued on the ground that he or she poses a threat to public policy and public security, but the expulsion order is not final, the expulsion has not been executed and the Union citizen continues to reside in the host Member State? If the first question is answered in the negative: Must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Union be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a Union citizen who has previously had the status of worker and has children enrolled at a primary school in the host Member State, those children and the parent who has actual custody of them do not lose their right of residence until the children complete their studies, if the parent who is a Union citizen and previously had the status of worker has been the subject of an order by the immigration authority for his or her expulsion from the host Member State on the ground that he or she poses a threat to public policy or public security? If the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, which lays down the circumstances which the host Member State must take into account before issuing an expulsion order on grounds of public policy or public security, be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for the expulsion of a Union citizen who has been the subject of an expulsion order must be re-examined if his or her children and spouse are recognised as having an independent right of residence in the host Member State after the issue of the expulsion order and those family members wish to remain in that Member State? If so, what circumstances must be examined, in particular, in a situation such as that at issue in the present proceedings, regard being had to the family and economic situation referred to in Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, read together with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on respect for private and family life and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter on the rights of the child? ____________ 1 The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 1 OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77. 1 OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.