Joined Cases C-420/22 and C-528/22,  NW (Classified information): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 April 2024 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék - Hungary) – NW (C-420/22), PQ (C-528/22) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Miniszterelnöki Kabinetirodát vezető miniszter (References for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the European Union – Article 20 TFEU – Union citizen who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement – Residence of a family member of that Union citizen – Threat to national security – Statement by a specialist national authority – Statement of reasons – Access to the file)
Date: 2024-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: children's rights, confidentiality, disclosure of information, foreign national, immigration, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, public safety, residence permit, right to justice








C_202403570EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3570


17.6.2024






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 April 2024 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék - Hungary) – NW (C-420/22), PQ (C-528/22) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Miniszterelnöki Kabinetirodát vezető miniszter


(Joined Cases C-420/22 and C-528/22,
                (1)
NW (Classified information))

(References for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 20 TFEU - Union citizen who has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement - Residence of a family member of that Union citizen - Threat to national security - Statement by a specialist national authority - Statement of reasons - Access to the file)
(C/2024/3570)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: NW (C-420/22), PQ (C-528/22)

Defendants: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Miniszterelnöki Kabinetirodát vezető miniszter

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Cases C-420/22 and C-528/22 are joined for the purposes of the judgment.










2.


Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the authorities of a Member State from withdrawing the residence permit of a third-country national who is a family member of Union citizens – nationals of that Member State who have never exercised their freedom of movement – or refusing to issue such a permit to such a person without having first examined whether there exists between that third-country national and those Union citizens a relationship of dependency which would, in practice, oblige those Union citizens to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole, in order to accompany that family member where, first, that third-country national cannot be granted a right of residence under another provision applicable in that Member State and, second, those authorities have information on the existence of family ties between that third-country national and those Union citizens.










3.


Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires national authorities, on grounds of national security, to withdraw the residence permit of a third-country national who may enjoy a derived right of residence under that article or to refuse to issue such a permit to such a person, solely on the basis of a binding non-reasoned opinion adopted by a body entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security, without a rigorous examination of all the individual circumstances and of the proportionality of that decision to withdraw or to refuse a residence permit.










4.


The general principle of sound administration and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 20 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision to withdraw or to refuse a residence permit, adopted in respect of a third-country national who may enjoy a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU, is based on information the disclosure of which would compromise the national security of the Member State in question, that third-country national or his or her representative may have access to that information only after having obtained an authorisation to that effect, is not even informed of the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of an administrative procedure or judicial proceedings, the information to which they might have had access.










5.


Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 20 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring a court which is responsible for reviewing the legality of a decision on residence under Article 20 TFEU, based on classified information, to have the power to verify the lawfulness of the categorisation of that information as classified and to authorise access by the person concerned to all of that information, in the event that it considers that that categorisation is unlawful, or the substance of that information, if it considers that that categorisation is lawful. However, in order to ensure that that person’s rights of the defence are respected, that court must, where relevant, draw the appropriate conclusions from any decision taken by the competent authorities not to disclose all or part of the grounds for that decision and the evidence relating thereto.






(1)  
            OJ C 451, 28.11.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3570/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)