Case C-299/23, Darvate and Others: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles- Belgium) – Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone de Belgique, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et les Étrangers ASBL, NX v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Immigration policy – Directive (EU) 2016/801 – Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for study purposes – Article 34(5) – Appeal against a decision rejecting an application for admission to the territory of a Member State for study purposes – Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2025-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action brought before an administrative court, admission of aliens, educational exchange, foreign student, judicial review, residence permit, right to education, right to justice, traineeship








C_202504245EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4245


11.8.2025






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles- Belgium) – Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone de Belgique, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et les Étrangers ASBL, NX v État belge


(Case C-299/23,
                (1)
Darvate and Others
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Directive (EU) 2016/801 - Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for study purposes - Article 34(5) - Appeal against a decision rejecting an application for admission to the territory of a Member State for study purposes - Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(C/2025/4245)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone de Belgique, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et les Étrangers ASBL, NX

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(5) of Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as not requiring, as regards the action by which a third-country national, in order to assert the rights he or she derives from Article 5(3) of that directive, seeks to challenge the decision of the competent authorities rejecting his or her application for admission to the territory of the Member State concerned for study purposes:






—


that an exceptional appeal heard under an urgent procedure is afforded to such a national where, even though he or she has exercised due diligence, compliance with the time limits relating to the ordinary procedure for reviewing that decision could hinder the progress of his or her studies;










—


that, in the context of such an exceptional appeal, the court hearing the case has the power to order, where appropriate, interim measures, inter alia, instructing the competent authorities to take a new decision with a view to issuing the residence permit for study purposes applied for, or










—


that the court hearing an appeal against that decision has the power to substitute its own assessment for that of those authorities or to adopt a new decision.




The conditions under which an appeal against a decision of the competent authorities rejecting an application for admission to the territory of a Member State for study purposes is brought and, where appropriate, the judgment adopted at the end of that appeal is implemented must, however, be such as to allow a new decision to be adopted within a short period of time, in accordance with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling that decision, in such a way that a sufficiently diligent third-country national is able to benefit from the full effectiveness of the rights which he or she derives from that directive.


(1)  
            OJ C 296, 21.8.2023.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4245/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)