CELEX: 62019CN0250
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-250/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2019 — B. O. L. v État belge

27.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/25
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2019 — B. O. L. v État belge
      (Case C-250/19)
      (2019/C 182/30)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Conseil d’État
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: B. O. L.
      
         Defendant: État belge
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  In order to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law and not make it impossible to enjoy the right to family reunification which, according to the applicant, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child is able to enjoy the right to family reunification where he becomes an adult during the court proceedings brought against the decision which refuses to grant him that right and was taken when he was still a minor?’
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal to grant a right to family reunification to a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child became an adult during the court proceedings, since he is deprived of the opportunity for a judgment to be given in his action against that decision and his right to an effective remedy is infringed?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.