CELEX: 62011CA0249
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-249/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Byankov v Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 27 — Administrative prohibition on leaving the territory on account of failure to pay a debt owed to a private legal person — Principle of legal certainty with regard to administrative acts which have become final — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

24.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 366/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Byankov v Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
   (Case C-249/11) (1)
   
   (Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 27 - Administrative prohibition on leaving the territory on account of failure to pay a debt owed to a private legal person - Principle of legal certainty with regard to administrative acts which have become final - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2012/C 366/20
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Hristo Byankov
   
      Defendant: Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 4 TEU in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Interpretation of Articles 27(1) and Article 31(1) and (3) 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) — Restrictions on the right of freedom of movement — Order imposing an administrative measure prohibiting a debtor from leaving the territory on the ground of the non-recovery of a debt — Principle of legal certainty in relation to final administrative acts — Whether or not the competent administrative authority is obliged to re-examine the lawfulness of an administrative act which has not been the subject of an appeal and has therefore become final in order to ensure that there is no disproportionate restriction on the right of freedom of movement
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               European Union law must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision which provides for the imposition of a restriction on the freedom of movement, within the European Union, of a national of a Member State, solely on the ground that he owes a legal person governed by private law a debt which exceeds a statutory threshold and is unsecured.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               European Union law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an administrative procedure that has resulted in the adoption of a prohibition on leaving the territory such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has become final and has not been contested before the courts, may be reopened — in the event of the prohibition being clearly contrary to European Union law — only in circumstances such as those exhaustively listed in Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), despite the fact that such a prohibition continues to produce legal effects with regard to its addressee.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.