Case C-1/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket (Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Directive 73/148/EEC — National of one Member State established in another Member State — Right to residence of a spouse's parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-Member country — Requirement that the parent be lawfully resident in a Member State when joining his family in the Member State of establishment — Evidence required to show that the parent is a dependant)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admission of aliens, family migration, foreign national, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, mixed marriage, residence permit

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/3

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Technische Glaswerke

in addition to
bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of
the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings
and to these proceedings.

Ilmenau GmbH,

3. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs

incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings.

4. Orders Schott AG to bear its own costs related to these proceed-

ings.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i
Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v
Migrationsverket

(Case C-1/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of one Member State established in
another Member State — Right to residence of a spouse's
parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-
Member country — Requirement that the parent be lawfully
resident in a Member State when joining his family in the
Member State of establishment — Evidence required to show
that the parent is a dependant)

(2007/C 42/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yunying Jia

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Utlänningsnämnden (Alien
Appeals Board)
(Sweden) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC,
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2) and Articles 1(d) and 6(b) of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition
of restrictions on movement and residence within the Com-
munity for nationals of Member States with regard to establish-
ment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14) — Right

to residence of a parent of a spouse, both holding the nation-
ality of a non-Member State, of a national of a Member State
resident in another Member State who is dependent on that
citizen — Requirement for that parent to reside lawfully in a
Member State when joining his family — Evidence required to
show that the parent is a dependent

Operative part of the judgment

1. Having regard to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003]
ECR I-9607, Community law does not require Member States to
make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member
State, who are members of the family of a Community national
who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the
condition that those family members have previously been residing
lawfully in another Member State;

2. Article 1(1)(d) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard
to establishment and the provision of services is to be interpreted to
the effect that ‘dependent on them’ means that members of the
family of a Community national established in another Member
State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material
support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order
to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family
members or the State from which they have come at the time when
they apply to join that Community national. Article 6(b) of that
directive must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the need for
material support may be adduced by any appropriate means, while
a mere undertaking from the Community national or his or her
the family members concerned need not be
spouse to support
regarded as establishing the existence of the family members' situa-
tion of real dependence.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överkla-
gandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v
Umeå universitet

(Case C-40/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 CE —
Obstacles — Vocational training — Teachers — Refusal to
admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in
another Member State)

(2007/C 42/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för högskolan