CELEX: 62012CA0423
Language: en
Date: 2014-01-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-423/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden)) — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence in a Member State of a third-country national who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State — Concept of ‘dependant’ )

22.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 85/7
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden)) — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-423/12) (1)
   
   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Right of residence in a Member State of a third-country national who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State - Concept of ‘dependant’)
   2014/C 85/12
   Language of the case: Swedish
   
      Referring court
   
   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Flora May Reyes
   
      Defendant: Migrationsverket
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of resident in a Member State of a national of a third country aged over 21 years, who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State — Notion of ‘dependent’ — Obligation on the direct descendant to prove that he has tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or applied to the authorities of the State of origin for financial support to meet his needs, or otherwise tried to support himself.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot require a direct descendant who is 21 years old or older, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a family member under Article 2(2)(c) of that provision, to have tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or to obtain subsistence support from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise to support himself.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a relative — due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health — is deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intends to start work in the Member State does not affect the interpretation of the requirement in that provision that he be a ‘dependant’.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012