Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2019:1071
Date: 2019-12-12
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other party: E.P. (Case C-380/18) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Raad van State Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid Other party: E.P. Questions referred Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 1 … be interpreted as meaning that, when establishing that a legal stay of no more than 90 days within a period of 180 days has been terminated because a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy, reasons must be given as to why the personal conduct of the foreign national concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society? If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements which, pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … apply to the reasons as to why the foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy? Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public order on the sole ground that it has been established that the foreign national concerned is suspected of having committed a criminal offence? ____________ 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).