CELEX: 62010CA0430
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-430/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Directive 2004/38/EC — Prohibition on leaving national territory due to a criminal conviction in another country — Drug trafficking — Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)

28.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 25/16
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
      (Case C-430/10) (1)
      
      (Freedom of movement of a Union citizen - Directive 2004/38/EC - Prohibition on leaving national territory due to a criminal conviction in another country - Drug trafficking - Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)
      (2012/C 25/25)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Hristo Gaydarov
      
         Defendant: Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
      
         Re:
      
      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 27(1) and (2) of 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), Recitals 5 and 20 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1), and Article 71(1)and(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders e (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Restriction on the freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Prohibition on leaving national territory because of a crime relating to drug trafficking committed in a third State — Whether measure justifiable by reasons of public policy for the purposes of general and individual prevention.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 21 TFEU and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and 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, do not preclude national legislation that permits the restriction of the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State in particular on the ground that he has been convicted of a criminal offence of narcotic drug trafficking in another State, provided that (i) the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, (ii) the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it and (iii) that measure is subject to effective judicial review permitting a determination of its legality as regards matters of fact and law in the light of the requirements of European Union law.
      
         (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.