CELEX: 62019CN0133
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-133/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.S. v État belge

13.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 164/21
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.S. v État belge
      (Case C-133/19)
      (2019/C 164/23)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Conseil d’État
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: B.M.M., B.S.
      
         Defendant: État belge
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.