EN
28.11.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 451/9
Question referred Is Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (1) on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (‘the Rome I Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the law of the country in which the consumer has his or her habitual residence is not applicable if the law applicable under Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation, the application of which the applicant seeks and which would be applicable if the applicant lacked consumer status, is more favourable to the applicant?
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 August 2022 — PQ v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Miniszterelnöki Kabinetirodát vezető miniszter (Case C-528/22) (2022/C 451/12) Language of the case: Hungarian Referring court Szegedi Törvényszék
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: PQ Defendants: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Miniszterelnöki Kabinetirodát vezető miniszter
Questions referred 1. (a) Must Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a practice whereby a Member State adopts a decision ordering the withdrawal of a residence permit which had previously been issued to a third country national — or refuses an application for an extension of the right of residence (in the present case, an application for a national permanent residence permit) — whose minor child and cohabiting partner are nationals of a Member State of the Union and live in that Member State, without previously examining whether the family member concerned, a third country national, can benefit from a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU?
(b) Must Article 20 TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 and 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU, EU law requires that national administrative authorities and courts must also apply EU law when adopting an immigration decision concerning an application for extension of the right of residence (in this case an application for a national permanent residence permit) and when they apply the national security, public policy or public security exceptions on which that decision is based and, where it is shown that those grounds exist, when they examine the necessity and proportionality justifying a limitation on the right of residence? 2.
Must Article 20 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter — and also, in this specific case, with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter –, be interpreted as meaning that an authority of a Member State which, on grounds of national security and/or public policy or public security, has adopted a decision ordering the withdrawal of a long-term residence permit which had previously been issued — or makes a decision on an application for extension of the right of residence –, and the specialised authority which has determined that the matter is confidential, must ensure there is a guarantee that in all circumstances the person concerned, who is a third-country national, and his or her legal representative, are entitled to know at least the essence of the confidential or classified information and data underpinning the decision which is based on those grounds and to use that information or those data in the proceedings concerning the decision, where the competent authority considers that such disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security?