Case C-348/09

P.I.

v

Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen)

‛Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Expulsion decision — Criminal conviction — Imperative grounds of public security’

Summary of the Judgment

Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member State — Directive 2004/38 — Limitation of the right of entry and residence on imperative grounds of public security — Expulsion decision — Factors to be taken into consideration

(Art. 83(1), second subpara., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 28(3)(a))

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the Member States to regard criminal offences such as those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 83(1) TFEU as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, which might pose a direct threat to the calm and physical security of the population and thus be covered by the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’, capable of justifying an expulsion measure under Article 28(3), as long as the manner in which such offences were committed discloses particularly serious characteristics, which it is a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of an individual examination of the specific case before it.

The issue of any expulsion measure is conditional on the requirement that the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or of the host Member State, which implies, in general, the existence in the individual concerned of a propensity to act in the same way in the future. Before taking an expulsion decision, the host Member State must take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided in its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into that State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin.

(see paras 33, 34, operative part)

Case C-348/09

P.I.

v

Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen)

‛Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Expulsion decision — Criminal conviction — Imperative grounds of public security’

Summary of the Judgment

Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member State — Directive 2004/38 — Limitation of the right of entry and residence on imperative grounds of public security — Expulsion decision — Factors to be taken into consideration

(Art. 83(1), second subpara., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 28(3)(a))

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the Member States to regard criminal offences such as those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 83(1) TFEU as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, which might pose a direct threat to the calm and physical security of the population and thus be covered by the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’, capable of justifying an expulsion measure under Article 28(3), as long as the manner in which such offences were committed discloses particularly serious characteristics, which it is a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of an individual examination of the specific case before it.

The issue of any expulsion measure is conditional on the requirement that the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or of the host Member State, which implies, in general, the existence in the individual concerned of a propensity to act in the same way in the future. Before taking an expulsion decision, the host Member State must take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided in its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into that State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin.

(see paras 33, 34, operative part)