Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:5
Date: 2019-01-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Right of entry and residence
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Ireland

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on2 March 2018 – Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon v Minister for Justice and Equality (Case C-169/18) Language of the case: English Referring court Court of Appeal (Ireland) Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Atif Mahmood, Shabina Atif, Mohammed Ahsan, Noor Habib, Mohammed Haroon, Nik Bibi Haroon Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality Questions referred Subject to the potential justifications described in Questions 2, 3 and 4, is a Member State in breach of the requirement in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC1 “the 2004 Directive”) to issue a visa as quickly as possible to the spouse and family Members of a Union citizen exercising free movement rights in the Member State in question or intending to exercise such rights where the delays in processing such an application exceed 12 months or more? Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or otherwise deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to ensure in particular by way of background checks that the application is not fraudulent or an abuse of rights, including that the marriage amounts to a marriage of convenience, whether by virtue of Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise and thus not a breach of Article 5(2)? Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from the necessity to conduct extensive background and security checks on persons coming from certain third countries because of specific concerns relating to security in respect of travellers coming from those third countries, whether by virtue of Article 27 or Article 35 of the 2004 Directive or otherwise justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)? Without prejudice to Question 1, are delays in processing or deciding on an application for a visa pursuant to Article 5(2) arising from a sudden and anticipated surge in such applications coming from certain third countries which are thought to present real security concerns justifiable and thus not in breach of Article 5(2)? ____________ 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).