CELEX: C2001/028/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations — Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admission — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)

27.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 28/3
England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling             of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport               The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,                   ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and                      of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)              25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                 concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:                     or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),             p. 117) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.                  M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,            of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporte-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   2000, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when     Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to      1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community       movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
importance.                                                               grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
                                                                          a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
                                                                          a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               ‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
                                                                          a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
                                                                          concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
                                                                          State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
                                                                          investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
                                                                          months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
                                                                          such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
                                                                          to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
                       of 9 November 2000                                 result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
                                                                          of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
                                                                          determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                   Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)
(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
                  and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)
                           (2001/C 28/05)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal