Case C-434/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Petar Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Directive 2004/38/EC — Prohibition on leaving national territory because of non payment of a tax liability — Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)
Date: 2011-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, Schengen Agreement, claim, freedom of movement, managing director, penalty, tax offence








C_2012025EN.01001602.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/16






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Petar Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
(Case C-434/10) (1)

(Freedom of movement of a Union citizen - Directive 2004/38/EC - Prohibition on leaving national territory because of non payment of a tax liability - Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)
(2012/C 25/26)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Petar Aladzhov

Defendant: Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 27(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Restriction of the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Natural person, as the representative of a debtor commercial company, prohibited from leaving national territory because of the non-recovery of ‘considerable’ debts owed to a public authority — Measure justified on grounds of public policy

Operative part of the judgment







1.


European Union law does not preclude a legislative provision of a Member State which permits an administrative authority to prohibit a national of that State from leaving it on the ground that a tax liability of a company of which he is one of the managers has not been settled, subject, however, to the twofold condition that the measure at issue is intended to respond, in certain exceptional circumstances which might arise from, inter alia, the nature or amount of the debt, to a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society and that the objective thus pursued does not solely serve economic ends. It is for the national court to determine whether that twofold condition is satisfied.










2.


Even if a measure imposing a prohibition on leaving the territory such as that applying to Mr Aladzhov in the main proceedings has been adopted under the conditions laid down in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the conditions laid down in Article 27(2) thereof preclude such a measure,






—


if it is founded solely on the existence of the tax liability of the company of which he is one of the joint managers, and on the basis of that status alone, without any specific assessment of the personal conduct of the person concerned and with no reference to any threat of any kind which he represents to public policy, and










—


if the prohibition on leaving the territory is not appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and goes beyond what is necessary to attain it.




It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the position in the case before it.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.