CELEX: 62009CN0145
Language: en
Date: 2009-04-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-145/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis

4.7.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 153/26
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis
   (Case C-145/09)
   2009/C 153/48
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   
      Defendant: Panagiotis Tsakouridis
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the expression ‘imperative grounds of public security’ used in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that only irrefutable threats to the external or internal security of the Member State can justify an expulsion, that is, only to the existence of the State and its essential institutions, their ability to function, the survival of the population, external relations and peaceful relations between nations?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Under what conditions can the right to enhanced protection against expulsion achieved following ten years of residence in the host Member State laid down in Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC subsequently be lost? Is the condition for the loss of the right of permanent residence laid down in Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied mutatis mutandis in that context?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the question in point 2 above is to be answered in the affirmative and Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied mutatis mutandis: is the enhanced protection against expulsion lost by lapse of time alone, irrespective of the reasons for the absence?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Also if the question in point 2 above is to be answered in the affirmative and Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied: can an enforced return to the host Member State in the context of criminal proceedings before expiry of the two-year period have the effect of maintaining the right to increased protection against expulsion, even where following that return the fundamental freedoms cannot be exercised for some time?
            
         
      (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 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77, and Corrigenda in OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p. 35 and L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 28.