Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-15/12 — Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State (Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards)
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, application of EU law, free movement of persons, organised crime, principle of legal certainty, public safety, right to justice








C_2013309EN.01000601.xml










24.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/6





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 22 July 2013
in Case E-15/12
Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State
(Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards)
2013/C 309/06
In Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland) under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Article 27 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Under Article 7 EEA, an EEA/EFTA State has the choice of form and method when implementing an act corresponding to Directive 2004/38/EC into its legal order. Depending on the legal context, the implementation of a directive does not necessarily require legislative action, as long as it is implemented with unquestionable binding force and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty.










2.


It is sufficient for an EEA State to base a decision under Article 27 of the Directive not to grant an individual who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory on grounds of public policy and/or public security only upon a danger assessment, which assesses the role of the individual in the accession of a new charter to an organisation of which the individual is a member and which concludes that the organisation is associated with organised crime and that where such an organisation has managed to establish itself, organised crime has increased. It is further required that the assessment is based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Moreover, this personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, and the restriction on the right to entry must be proportionate. In the light of the relevant matters of fact and law, it is for the national court to determine whether those requirements are met.










3.


An EEA State cannot be obliged to declare an organisation and membership therein unlawful before it can deny a member of that organisation who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory pursuant to Article 27 of the Directive if recourse to such a declaration is not thought appropriate in the circumstances. However, the EEA State must have clearly defined its standpoint as regards the activities of that organisation and, considering the activities to be a threat to public policy and/or public security, it must have taken administrative measures to counteract those activities.










4.


In order to invoke a public policy and/or public security threat under Article 27(1) of the Directive it does not suffice that an EEA State has defined as punishable, conduct that consists of conniving with another person in the commission of an act, the commission of which is part of the activities of a criminal organisation.










5.


The national administrative authorities must ensure that there is sufficient evidence to conclude under Article 27(2) of the Directive that the individual concerned was likely to engage in personal conduct that represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. It is for the national court to determine, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether this is the case.