CELEX: C2000/047/30
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-459/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999, in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme, l'Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State

19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,                   issue of a first residence document or have an expulsion
Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999,                      order made against them before the issue thereof?
in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme,
l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State
                                                                        (1) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, p. 13).
                         (Case C-459/99)                                (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
                                                                            establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14).
                                                                        (3) determining the third countries whose nationals must be in
                                                                            possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the
                          (2000/C 47/30)                                    Member States (OJ L 234, p. 1.).
                                                                        (4) on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement
                                                                            and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds
                                                                            of public policy, public security or public health (OJ L 56, p. 850).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
(Council of State), Belgium, by judgment of 23 November
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ASBL Mouvement
contre le Racisme, l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX)
v Belgian State, on the following questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
1. Must Article 3 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October      1968 (1),              of the European Communities against Ireland
    Article 3 of Directive 73/148 of 21 May 1973 (2) and
    Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 (3), read in                                        (Case C-461/99)
    the light of the principles of proportionality, non-
    discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be
    interpreted as meaning that the Member States may, at the                                       (2000/C 47/31)
    border, send back foreigners who are subject to a visa
    requirement and spouses of Community nationals who
    attempt to enter the territory of a Member State without            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    being in possession of an identity document or visa?                Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 1999 by
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Lena
                                                                        Ström, member of the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
2. Must Article 4 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    and Article 6 of Directive 73/148, read in the light of             Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    Article 3 of each of those directives and of the principles         Commission, Centre Wagner.
    of proportionality, non-discrimination and the right to
    respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that
    Member States may refuse to issue a residence document              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
    to the spouse of a Community national who has entered
    their territory in an irregular manner and issue an expulsion       — declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
    order against him?                                                       comply with Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on
                                                                             waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC(2),
                                                                             Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous
3. Do Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of                  waste, and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC (4) on packag-
    Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3) of Directive 64/221 of                 ing and packaging waste, Ireland has failed to comply with
    25 February 1964 (4) mean that the Member States may                     these Directives and with its obligations under the Treaty;
    neither withhold a residence document nor expel the
    foreign spouse of a Community national who has entered              — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    the national territory in a regular manner but whose visa
    has expired when application is made for the issue of that
    document?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4. Must Articles 1 and 9(2) of Directive 64/221 of 25 Februa-           The Commission considers that the existing general waste
    ry 1964 be interpreted as meaning that the foreign spouses          plans and existing toxic waste plans submitted to it by Ireland
    of Community nationals who are not in possession of                 are unsatisfactory for the purposes of meeting the requirements
    identity documents or a visa or whose visa has expired              of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive
    have the right to refer the matter to the competent                 91/156/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC and Directive 94/62/EC,
    authority mentioned in Article 9 when applying for the              for the following reasons: