CELEX: 62016CN0316
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-316/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg

19.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/23
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-316/16)
   (2016/C 343/36)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: B
   
      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it outright impossible for the imposition and subsequent implementation of a custodial penalty to have the result that the integrating links of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State at the age of three must be considered to be broken, with the consequence that there is no uninterrupted period of residence of 10 years for the purposes of Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and therefore that there is no requirement to grant him protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38, if that Union citizen has, since entering the host Member State at the age of three, spent his entire life there and no longer has any ties to the Member State of his nationality, and the offence that resulted in imposition and implementation of a custodial sentence was committed only after he had been resident for 20 years?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: With regard to the question of whether implementation of a custodial penalty leads to the breaking of integration links, must the custodial penalty imposed in respect of the offence giving rise to the expulsion be disregarded?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: What criteria are to be used to determine whether the Union citizen affected in such a case nevertheless benefits from protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: Are there mandatory provisions of EU law for determining ‘the precise point in time at which the question of expulsion arises’ and the point in time at which an overall assessment must be made of the affected Union citizen’s situation in order to establish the extent to which the non-continuous nature of the period of residence in the ten years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned prevents him from enjoying enhanced protection against expulsion?
            
         
      (1)  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).