Joined Cases C-381/18 and C-382/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — G.S. (C-381/18), V.G. (C-382/18) v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (References for a preliminary ruling — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Concept of ‘grounds of public policy’ — Rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member — Withdrawal of or refusal to renew a residence permit of a family member)
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, family, family migration, offence, penalty, public order, residence permit








C_2020054EN.01000401.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — G.S. (C-381/18), V.G. (C-382/18) v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Joined Cases C-381/18 and C-382/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Immigration policy - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification - Concept of ‘grounds of public policy’ - Rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member - Withdrawal of or refusal to renew a residence permit of a family member)
(2020/C 54/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: G.S. (C-381/18), V.G. (C-382/18)

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The Court has jurisdiction under Article 267 TFEU to interpret Article 6 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation in which a court is called upon to rule on an application for entry and residence of a third-country national who is a member of the family of a Union citizen who has not exercised his or her right to free movement, where that provision has been made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation by national law.










2.


Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which the competent authorities may, on grounds of public policy, first, reject an application, founded on that directive, for entry and residence, on the basis of a criminal conviction imposed during a previous stay on the territory of the Member State concerned and, second, withdraw a residence permit founded on that directive or refuse to renew it where a sentence sufficiently severe in comparison with the duration of the stay has been imposed on the applicant, provided that that practice is applicable only if the offence which warranted the criminal conviction at issue is sufficiently serious to establish that it is necessary to rule out residence of that applicant and that those authorities carry out the individual assessment provided for in Article 17 of that directive, matters which are for the referring court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.