Case C-84/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Rahmanian Koushkaki v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Articles 21(1), 32(1) and 35(6) — Procedures and conditions for issuing uniform visas — Obligation to issue a visa — Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration — Intention of the applicant to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for — Reasonable doubt — Discretion of the competent authorities)
Date: 2013-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, area of freedom, security and justice, illegal migration








C_2014052EN.01000702.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Rahmanian Koushkaki v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-84/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Articles 21(1), 32(1) and 35(6) - Procedures and conditions for issuing uniform visas - Obligation to issue a visa - Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration - Intention of the applicant to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for - Reasonable doubt - Discretion of the competent authorities)
2014/C 52/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rahmanian Koushkaki

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1), in particular Articles 21(1) and 32(1) — Procedures and conditions for granting visas — Right of an applicant for a visa who satisfies the entry conditions to be granted a visa — Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration — Discretion of the Member States concerned.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 23(4), 32(1) and 35(6) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State cannot refuse, following the examination of an application for a uniform visa, to issue such a visa to an applicant unless one of the grounds for refusal of a visa listed in those provisions can be applied to that applicant. Those authorities have a wide discretion in the examination of that application so far as concerns the conditions for the application of those provisions and the assessment of the relevant facts, with a view to ascertaining whether one of those grounds for refusal can be applied to the applicant.










2.


Article 32(1) of Regulation No 810/2009, read in conjunction with Article 21(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the competent authorities of a Member State to issue a uniform visa is subject to the condition that there is no reasonable doubt that the applicant intends to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for, in the light of the general situation in the applicant’s country of residence and his individual characteristics, determined in the light of information provided by the applicant.










3.


Regulation No 810/2009 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the conditions for the issue of a visa provided for by that regulation are satisfied, the competent authorities have the power to issue a uniform visa to the applicant, but does not state that they are obliged to issue that visa, in so far as such a provision can be interpreted in a way that is in conformity with Articles 23(4), 32(1) and 35(6) of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012