Case C-457/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G (Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU  — Directive 2004/38/EC  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national  — Professional activities  — Regular travel to another Member State)
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, residence permit








C_2014135EN.01000701.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G
(Case C-457/12) (1)

((Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Beneficiaries - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national - Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national - Professional activities - Regular travel to another Member State))
(2014/C 135/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: S, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

Defendants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, G

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU, 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(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) — Persons benefiting from the right of free movement and freedom to reside in the territory of the Member States — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives in the Member State of which he is a national but who works in another Member State for an employer established in that other Member State — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives and works in his Member State of origin but who regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.

Operative part of the judgment

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 must be interpreted as not precluding a refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen where that citizen is a national of and resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.
Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring on a third-country national who is the family member of a Union citizen a derived right of residence in the Member State of which that citizen is a national, where the citizen resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State as a worker within the meaning of that provision, if the refusal to grant such a right of residence discourages the worker from effectively exercising his rights under Article 45 TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  
            OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.