CELEX: 62021CN0069
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-69/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 4 February 2021 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

3.5.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 163/13
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 4 February 2021 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
      (Case C-69/21)
      (2021/C 163/18)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Referring court
      
      Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: X
      
         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Can a significant increase in pain intensity due to a lack of medical treatment, while the clinical picture remains unchanged, constitute a situation which is contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, if no postponement of the departure obligation resulting from Directive 2008/115/EC (1) (‘the Return Directive’) is permitted?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is the setting of a fixed period within which the consequences of the lack of medical treatment must materialise in order to constitute a medical obstacle to an obligation to return resulting from the Return Directive compatible with Article 4 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter? If the setting of a fixed period is not contrary to EU law, is a Member State then permitted to set a general period that is the same for all possible medical conditions and all possible medical consequences?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Is a determination that the consequences of expulsion should be assessed solely in terms of whether, and under what conditions, the foreign national can travel, compatible with Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and with the Return Directive?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Does Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that the medical condition of the foreign national and the treatment he is undergoing in the Member State be assessed when determining whether private life considerations should result in permission to stay being granted? Does Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that private life and family life, as referred to in Article 7 of the Charter, be taken into account when assessing whether medical problems may constitute an obstacle to expulsion?
               
            
         (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).