Case C-122/08: Action brought on 19 mars 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2008-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European citizenship, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, freedom of movement, national implementing measure, residence permit

C 116/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

for

transposition of Directive 2005/61 into

(1) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
Amsterdam lodged on 21 March 2008 — Dominic
Wolzenburg

(Case C-123/08)

(2008/C 116/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Action brought on 19 mars 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

(Case C-122/08)

(2008/C 116/32)

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Language of the case: English

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dominic Wolzenburg

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Mr M. Wilderspin, Agent)

Questions referred

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

1.

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 (1) on the right of citizens of the Union
and their family members to move and reside freely within
the territory of the Member States, or in any event by failing
to communicate them to the Commission,
the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 30 April 2006.

(1) OJ L 158, p. 77.

Should persons who are staying in or are residents of the
executing Member State, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the
Framework Decision (1), be taken to mean persons who do
not have the nationality of the executing Member State, but
do have the nationality of another Member State and are
lawfully resident in the executing Member State pursuant to
Article 18(1) EC, regardless of the duration of that lawful
residence?

2a.

If the answer to question 1 is negative, should the terms
referred to in that question be interpreted as meaning that
they concern persons who do not have the nationality of
the executing Member State, but do have the nationality of
another Member State and, prior to their arrest under a
European arrest warrant, have been lawfully resident in the
executing Member State pursuant to Article 18(1) EC for at
least a certain period?

2b. If the answer to question 2a is affirmative, what require-

ments must lawful residence meet?

3.

the answer

If
to question 2a is affirmative, may the
executing Member State lay down, in addition to a require-
ment concerning the duration of lawful residence, supple-
mentary administrative requirements, such as possession of
a permanent residence permit?

4. Does a national measure specifying the conditions under
which a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the
enforcement of a custodial sentence is rejected by the judi-
cial authority of the executing Member State come within
the (material) scope of the EC Treaty?