Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations — Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admission — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, admission of aliens, interpretation of the law, public order, residence permit

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/3

England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n and R. Schintgen,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
p. 117) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevo´ n (Rapporte-
ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
2000, in which it has ruled:

On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community
importance.

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 November 2000

in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)

Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.

The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.

(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)

(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.

(2001/C 28/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal