Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,sv&lng2=bg,cs,da,de,el,en,es,et,fi,fr,hu,it,lt,lv,mt,nl,pl,pt,ro,sk,sl,sv,&val=677595:cs&page=
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 17:25:58+00:00
Document Index: 35793049

Matched Legal Cases: ['domstolen ', 'domstolen ', 'domstolen ', 'Domstolen ', 'Domstolen ', 'domstolen ', 'domstolen ']

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents, Konungariket Nederländerna, företrätt av C. Wissels och J. Langer, båda i egenskap av ombud, defendant,
1. By its application, the European Commission requests the Court to declare that, by requiring third-country nationals and their family members applying for long-term resident status to pay high and unfair fees, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) and, therefore, its obligations under Article 258 TFEU. 1. Europeiska kommissionen har yrkat att domstolen ska fastställa att Konungariket Nederländerna har underlåtit att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt rådets direktiv 2003/109/EG av den 25 november 2003 om varaktigt bosatta tredjelandsmedborgares ställning (EUT L 16, 2004, s. 44) genom att förplikta tredjelandsmedborgare och deras familjemedlemmar som ansöker om ställning som varaktigt bosatta att betala avgifter som är höga och oskäliga, samt därigenom har underlåtit att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artikel 258 FEUF.
Legal context Tillämpliga bestämmelser European Union legislation Unionslagstiftningen Directive 2003/109
2. Recitals 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 18 in the preamble to Directive 2003/109, which was adopted on the basis of Article 63(3) and (4) EC, are worded as follows: 2. Skälen 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 och 18 i direktiv 2003/109, som antagits med stöd av artikel 63.3 och 63.4 EG, har följande lydelse:
(3) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (3) Detta direktiv respekterar de grundläggande rättigheter och iakttar de principer som erkänns särskilt i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna och i Europeiska unionens stadga om grundläggande rättigheter.
3. It is apparent from Article 1 of Directive 2003/109 that the directive lays down:
(a) the terms for conferring and withdrawing long-term resident status granted by a Member State in relation to third-country nationals legally residing in its territory, and the rights pertaining thereto; and b) villkoren för bosättning i andra medlemsstater än den som beviljat dem varaktig bosättning för tredjelandsmedborgare som har beviljats denna ställning.”
4. Chapter II of Directive 2003/109 concerns the acquisition of long-term resident status in a Member State.
5. Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the directive, which comes under Chapter II, a Member State is to grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously within its territory for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application. 6. I artikel 5 i direktivet föreskrivs villkor för förvärv av ställning som varaktigt bosatt. Enligt punkt 1 a och b i denna artikel ska medlemsstaterna kräva att tredjelandsmedborgare styrker att de förfogar över dels stabila och regelbundna försörjningsmedel som är tillräckliga för att de ska kunna försörja sig själva och sina familjemedlemmar utan hjälp från systemet för socialt bistånd i den berörda medlemsstaten, dels en sjukförsäkring som täcker alla risker som de egna medborgarna i den berörda medlemsstaten normalt utsätts för.
6. Article 5 of the directive lays down the conditions concerning the acquisition of long-term resident status. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) and (b), Member States are to require third-country nationals to provide evidence that they have, for themselves and for dependent family members, firstly, stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned, and secondly, sickness insurance in respect of all risks normally covered for their own nationals in the Member State concerned. 7. I artikel 5.2 i direktivet föreskrivs att medlemsstaterna även får kräva att tredjelandsmedborgare följer villkoren för integrering i enlighet med nationell lagstiftning.
7. Article 5(2) provides that Member States may also require third-country nationals to comply with integration conditions, in accordance with national law.
8. Pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/109, in order to acquire long-term resident status, the third-country national concerned must lodge with the competent authorities of the Member State in which he/she resides an application, accompanied by documentary evidence, to be determined by national law, that he/she meets the conditions set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the directive.
9. Article 8 of the directive, entitled ‘Long-term resident’s EC residence permit’, provides in paragraph 2 thereof:
10. Chapter III of Directive 2003/109 concerns the right of a third-country national, with long-term residence status, to reside within the territory of a Member State other than the one which granted that status, and the right of the members of his/her family to reside in that other Member State. 11. I artikel 14.2 i direktivet, som återfinns i kapitel III, föreskrivs följande:
11. Article 14(2) of the directive, which comes under Chapter III, provides:
‘A long-term resident may reside in a second Member State on the following grounds: a) För att bedriva ekonomisk verksamhet som anställd eller egenföretagare.
(b) pursuit of studies or vocational training; c) För andra syften.”
12. Article 15(1) of the directive, which concerns the conditions for residence in a second Member State, provides that, as soon as possible and no later than three months after entering the territory of that Member State, the long-term resident is to apply to the competent authorities of that Member State for a residence permit.
13. Article 16 of Directive 2003/109 sets out the conditions concerning the residence of family members of the long-term resident who are authorised to accompany or to join him/her in a second Member State. It draws a distinction between families which are already constituted in the first Member State that granted long-term resident status and which fall within the scope of Article 16(1) and (2) of the directive, and families which are not constituted in the first Member State. In the latter case, pursuant to Article 16(5), Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) applies.
14. Article 19 of Directive 2003/109, entitled ‘Examination of applications and issue of a residence permit’, provides at paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof: ”2. Om villkoren i artiklarna 14, 15 och 16 är uppfyllda skall den andra medlemsstaten, om inget annat föreskrivs i bestämmelserna om allmän ordning, säkerhet och hälsa i artiklarna 17 och 18, utfärda ett förnybart uppehållstillstånd åt den varaktigt bosatte. …
15. 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 and corrigenda OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34, and OJ 2007 L 204, p. 28) – which was adopted on the basis of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 40 EC, 44 EC and 52 EC – provides, at Article 25(2), that all documents mentioned in Article 25(1), namely a certificate of registration, a document certifying permanent residence, a certificate attesting submission of an application for a family member residence card, a residence card or a permanent residence card, ‘shall be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents’. Den nationella lagstiftningen National legislation 16. Artikel 24.2 i lagen om allmän översyn av utlänningslagen (Wet tot algehele herziening van de Vreemdelingenwet) av den 23 november 2000 (Stb. 2000, nr 495), har följande lydelse:
16. Article 24(2) of the Law of 23 November 2000 providing for a comprehensive review of the Law on Foreign Nationals (Wet tot algehele herziening van de Vreemdelingenwet, Stb. 2000, n° 495, ‘the VW’) provides as follows: ”Utlänningen är i de fall som [ministern] fastställer, enligt de regler densamme har föreskrivit, skyldig att avlägga avgifter för handläggning av sin ansökan. Ministern kan för detta ändamål föreskriva att utlänningen ska förpliktas betala avgifter för utfärdande av dokumentation som intygar att vederbörande lagligen uppehåller sig i landet. Om utlänningen underlåter att betala ska ansökan inte handläggas eller ska utfärdande av handlingarna nekas.”
17. Article 24(2) of the VW was implemented by Articles 3.34 to 3.34i of the 2000 Regulation on Foreign Nationals (Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000, ‘the VV’).
18. Articles 3.34 to 3.34i of the VV set the charges payable by third-country nationals, with the exception of Turkish nationals applying for a residence permit, as follows:
>lt>16
19. Article 3.34f of the VV provides for a possible waiver of payment of charges in so far as it is justified under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950. Subparagraph 3 of that provision of the VV is worded as follows:
Det administrativa förfarandet Pre-litigation procedure 20. Eftersom kommissionen hade erhållit klagomål från tredjelandsmedborgare avseende de avgifter som föreskrevs enligt nederländsk lagstiftning för utfärdande av uppehållstillstånd för sådana medborgare, begärde kommissionen genom skrivelse av den 30 november 2007 att nederländska myndigheter skulle inkomma med vissa klargöranden.
20. Having received complaints from third-country nationals regarding the levying of charges provided for by the Netherlands legislation concerning the issue of residence permits to such nationals, the Commission, by letter of 30 November 2007, asked for clarification from the Dutch authorities. 21. De nederländska myndigheterna klargjorde sin tolkning av den ifrågavarande lagstiftningen genom skrivelse av den 7 februari 2008. Myndigheterna bestred inte beloppen för avgifterna som ålades tredjelandsmedborgare, men hävdade att frågan avseende avgiftsbeloppen inte reglerades i direktiv 2003/109 och att behörigheten i detta avseende tillkom medlemsstaterna.
21. The Dutch authorities set out their interpretation of the applicable legislation in a letter dated 7 February 2008. They did not contest the amount of the charges imposed on those nationals, but asserted that, since Directive 2003/109 does not set the amount of such charges, competence in that respect lies with Member States. 22. Mot denna bakgrund tillställde kommissionen den 27 juni 2008 Konungariket Nederländerna en formell underrättelse, där det framhölls att de avgifter som ålades tredjelandsmedborgare vilka omfattas av de rättigheter som föreskrivs genom direktiv 2003/109 måste vara rättvisa. Dessa avgifter får inte under några omständigheter avskräcka tredjelandsmedborgare som uppfyller villkoren i direktivet från att göra sina rättigheter enligt detta gällande. Även om det antas att den faktiska kostnaden för att handlägga ansökningar från tredjelandsmedborgare överstiger kostnaden för att handlägga unionsmedborgares ansökningar, är beloppen för de avgifter som föreskrivs av Konungariket Nederländerna oproportionerliga.
22. In those circumstances, the Commission, on 27 June 2008, sent a letter of formal notice to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which it stated that the charges imposed on third-country nationals who are beneficiaries of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109 must be fair. Those charges should in no way discourage nationals who satisfy the conditions laid down by Directive 2003/109 from asserting the rights which they derive from that directive. Even if the actual cost of processing the applications of those nationals exceeds that of the processing of applications of Union citizens, the amount of the charges imposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands is disproportionate.
23. As it was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to its letter of formal notice, on 23 March 2009, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion inviting that Member State to take the necessary measures to comply with that opinion within two months of its receipt. 24. Konungariket Nederländerna besvarade detta yttrande genom skrivelse av den 25 maj 2009 genom att på nytt påpeka att behörigheten att ta ut avgifter vid genomförandet av direktiv 2003/109 tillkommer medlemsstaterna, under förutsättning att dessa avgifter inte medför att det blir omöjligt eller orimligt svårt att utöva rättigheter som följer av direktivet. Enligt medlemsstaten innebär beloppen för de avgifter som föreskrivs enligt nederländsk lagstiftning, vilka beräknas i förhållande till ansökningsförfarandets verkliga kostnad, inte något hinder för berörda tredjelandsmedborgare att utöva sina rättigheter.
24. By letter dated 25 May 2009, the Kingdom of the Netherlands replied to that reasoned opinion, reiterating its view that the Member States were competent to levy charges in the context of the implementation of Directive 2003/109, provided, however, that such a levy does not render the exercise of the rights conferred by the directive impossible or excessively difficult. According to that Member State, the amount of the charges imposed by the Netherlands legislation, calculated on the basis of the actual cost of the formalities, does not hinder the exercise of their rights by the third-country nationals concerned. 25. Kommissionen beslutade mot denna bakgrund att väcka förevarande talan.
25. Accordingly, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
26. By order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2011, the Hellenic Republic was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Prövning av talan The action Upptagande till sakprövning Admissibility of the action Parternas argument
27. Konungariket Nederländerna har yrkat att talan ska avvisas.
27. The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the action must be rejected as inadmissible. 28. Kommissionen har nämligen i sin ansökan inte angett att någon specifik bestämmelse i direktiv 2003/109 har åsidosatts. Skäl 10 i direktivet, på vilket kommissionen huvudsakligen grundar sin talan, saknar juridiskt bindande verkan och medför inte i sig några autonoma skyldigheter. Även om det är riktigt att kommissionen även har åberopat skyldigheten till lojalt samarbete enligt artikel 10 EG, nu artikel 4.3 FEU, har kommissionen inte klargjort i vilken mån dess invändningar mot avgifterna grundas på denna bestämmelse. 28. The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims, firstly, that the Commission’s application does not refer to a breach of any specific provision of Directive 2003/109. Recital 10 in the preamble to that directive, upon which the Commission principally bases its action, has no binding legal force and does not establish independent obligations. While it is true that the Commission also refers to the obligation of loyal cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC, now Article 4(3) TEU, it does not further specify to what extent its complaints against the administrative charges are based on that provision. 29. Konungariket Nederländerna har även anfört att kommissionen inte vid någon tidpunkt under det administrativa förfarandet har framfört invändningar avseende att den nederländska lagstiftningen skulle strida mot direktivets struktur, systematik eller anda. Även om det bedömdes att kommissionen har rätt att göra en sådan invändning på detta sena stadium i fördragsbrottsförfarandet, anser medlemsstaten att – till skillnad från omständigheterna i dom av den 29 november 2001 i mål C‑202/99, kommissionen mot Italien (REG 2001, s. I‑9319), där domstolen godtog en sådan invändning – förevarande talan inte avser någon tvingande unionsrättslig bestämmelse.
29. The Kingdom of the Netherlands further submits that at no time during the pre-litigation phase did the Commission allege that the Netherlands legislation is contrary to the system, scheme or spirit of Directive 2003/109. In that respect, even if it were found that the Commission had the right to introduce such an allegation at an advanced stage of the infringement proceedings, that Member State claims that, unlike the judgment in Case C‑202/99 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I‑9319, in which the Court upheld such a complaint, no mandatory provision of EU law is referred to in the present action. 30. Konungariket Nederländerna har även bestritt omfattningen av kommissionens talan, eftersom Nederländerna anser att kommissionen har begränsat sitt yrkande till de avgifter som tredjelandsmedborgare måste betala för att förvärva ställning som varaktigt bosatta enligt kapitel II i direktiv 2003/109. Förevarande talan kan således inte anses omfatta de avgifter som ska betalas för ansökningar med tillämpning av kapitel III i direktivet.
30. Secondly, the Kingdom of the Netherlands contests the scope of the action brought by the Commission in so far as the latter, according to that Member State, limited the form of order sought in its application to the administrative charges which third-country nationals are required to pay to obtain the long-term resident status provided for in Chapter II of Directive 2003/109. The present proceedings cannot therefore relate to the charges imposed for applications made under Chapter III of the directive. 31. Mot bakgrund av dessa omständigheter anser Konungariket Nederländerna att kommissionens talan inte kan tas upp till sakprövning.
31. In those circumstances, that Member State considers that the Commission’s action must be declared inadmissible.
32. The Commission contests the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It submits that, firstly, an action seeking to establish that the Netherlands legislation is contrary to the system, scheme or spirit of the directive is indeed admissible, as was held by the Court in Commission v Italy . Moreover, the Commission claims that, despite the summary presentation of its objections in respect of the Netherlands legislation in the form of order set out in its application, the Kingdom of the Netherlands could precisely determine the scope of the action. The fact that the latter could provide detailed explanations and present its defence in respect of all the elements put forward by the Commission during the pre-litigation procedure demonstrates that this argument is well founded. Domstolens bedömning
33. It should be noted at the outset that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under EU law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself properly against the objections formulated by the Commission (see Case C‑340/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I‑9845, paragraph 25)
34. The subject-matter of proceedings under Article 258 TFEU is therefore delimited by the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by that provision. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the FEU Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also in order to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter (see Case C‑1/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I‑9989, paragraph 53, and Case C‑160/08 Commission v Germany [2010] ECR I‑3713, paragraph 42). 35. Enligt artikel 21 första stycket i stadgan för Europeiska unionens domstol och artikel 38.1 c i domstolens rättegångsregler, ska kommissionen, i varje ansökan som inges enligt artikel 258 FEUF, ange de exakta invändningar som domstolen ska pröva, samt, åtminstone kortfattat, de rättsliga och faktiska omständigheter som dessa invändningar grundas på (se, bland annat, dom av den 13 december 1990 i mål C‑347/88, kommissionen mot Grekland, REG 1990, s. I‑4747, punkt 28, och av den 16 juni 2005 i mål C‑456/03, kommissionen mot Italien, REG 2005, s. I‑5335, punkt 23).
35. By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 38(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission must, in any application made under Article 258 TFEU, indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based (see, to that effect, Case C‑347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I‑4747, paragraph 28; Case C‑456/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I‑5335, paragraph 23). 36. Kommissionens talan ska således innehålla en konsekvent och detaljerad redogörelse för skälen till varför kommissionen anser att den berörda medlemsstaten har underlåtit att uppfylla en av sina skyldigheter enligt fördragen.
36. It follows that the Commission’s action must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which have led it to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the treaties. 37. Vad avser förevarande talan kan det konstateras att den innehåller en klar redogörelse av de rättsliga och faktiska omständigheter på vilka den grundas. Det framgår nämligen såväl av det administrativa förfarandet, i synnerhet av kommissionens motiverade yttrande till Konungariket Nederländerna, som av ansökan att kommissionen huvudsakligen anser att de oproportionerliga beloppen för avgifterna som denna medlemsstat ålägger tredjelandsmedborgare i samband med genomförandet av direktiv 2003/109 innebär ett åsidosättande av direktivets ändamål och utgör hinder för utövandet av de rättigheter tredjelandsmedborgare tillerkänns genom detta direktiv.
37. It must be held that the present action contains a clear statement of the legal and factual particulars on which it is based. It is apparent from both the pre-litigation procedure, in particular, the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission’s application that that institution essentially claims that the disproportionate amount of charges imposed on third-country nationals by that Member State in implementing Directive 2003/109 undermines the objective pursued by that directive and hinders the exercise of the rights conferred on those nationals by that directive. 38. Det är visserligen utrett att kommissionen i sin ansökan inte har försökt påvisa att Konungariket Nederländerna har åsidosatt någon specifik bestämmelse i direktiv 2003/109, utan i stället har hävdat att denna medlemsstat – mot bakgrund av skälen till detta direktiv – har åsidosatt direktivets systematik, anda och syften samt därmed dess ändamålsenliga verkan.
38. Admittedly, it is not disputed that, in its application, the Commission has not sought to show a breach of any specific provision of Directive 2003/109 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but, on the contrary, claimed, in the light of the recitals to that directive, that that Member State has infringed the system, scheme, spirit, and, therefore, the effectiveness of that directive. 39. Domstolen har emellertid redan slagit fast att när kommissionen hävdar att en nationell lagstiftning strider mot ett direktivs systematik, struktur eller anda, utan att detta åsidosättande av unionsrätten kan hänföras till specifika bestämmelser i detta direktiv, kan kommissionens ansökan inte avvisas enbart av denna anledning (dom av den 29 november 2001 i det ovannämnda målet kommissionen mot Italien, punkt 23).
39. However, the Court has already held that, if the Commission claims that national legislation is contrary to the system, scheme or spirit of a directive, without relating the resultant breach of EU law to any specific provisions of that directive, its application cannot, on that ground alone, be held to be inadmissible (see Commission v Italy , paragraph 23).
40. As the Advocate General has observed in point 38 of his Opinion, the reference by the Commission, in its reply, to the judgment cited in the preceding paragraph aimed to address the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in its defence and did not constitute an alteration of the subject-matter of the alleged breach, contrary to the requirements of Article 258 TFEU. 41. I förevarande fall kan det även framhållas att Konungariket Nederländerna har kunnat göra sina försvarsgrunder gentemot kommissionens anmärkningar gällande på ett ändamålsenligt sätt, och detta trots den kortfattade formuleringen av yrkandena i ansökan.
41. It must also be noted that, in the present case, that Member State was able to present an effective defence against the Commission’s complaints, despite the succinct wording of the form of order sought in the latter’s application.
42. The Commission expressly referred, in its letter of formal notice, in the reasoned opinion and in its application, not only to the situation of third-country nationals seeking the grant of long-term resident status, which comes under Chapter II of Directive 2003/109, but also to that of third-country nationals who have already acquired that status in another Member State and are seeking a residence permit for themselves and for the members of their family in the Netherlands, a situation which falls within Chapter III of that directive. Furthermore, the scope of the action is very clear from the conclusions in the Commission’s reasoned opinion, from which it is apparent that, by citing Articles 7, 8, 15 and 16 of that directive, the Commission intended to refer to the charges levied in respect of applications for residence permits under both Chapter II and Chapter III of that directive. 43. Den omständigheten att yrkandena i ansökan enbart hänvisar till ”uttagande av höga och oskäliga avgifter från tredjelandsmedborgare och deras familjemedlemmar som ansöker om ställning som varaktigt bosatta” kan inte anses medföra att talans omfattning begränsas till sådana ansökningar från tredjelandsmedborgare som omfattas av kapitel II i direktiv 2003/109, för vilka en avgift på 201 euro tas ut av behöriga nederländska myndigheter. Det framgår nämligen av yrkandena i ansökan, mot bakgrund av dess motivering, att den även avser beloppen för de avgifter som åläggs tredjelandsmedborgare och deras familjemedlemmar med tillämpning av kapitel III i direktivet.
43. The fact that the form of order sought in the application refers only to the ‘[requirement that] third-country nationals and their family members applying for long-term resident status pay high and unfair fees’ cannot be regarded as limiting the scope of the action to only applications of third-country nationals falling within Chapter II of Directive 2003/109, for which the sum of EUR 201 is claimed by the competent Dutch authorities, when it is apparent from the form of order sought in the application, read in the light of its statement of reasons, that the application also covers the amount of the charges imposed on third-country nationals and their family members under Chapter III of the same directive.
44. It follows from the foregoing that the Commission’s action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands for failing to fulfil an obligation must be declared admissible and, as to the remainder, in so far as the Kingdom of the Netherlands’ arguments seek to contest the existence of the alleged failure, it is necessary to consider the merits of those arguments when considering the substance of the present dispute.
Prövning i sak Substance Parternas argument
45. Det kan konstateras att parternas argument åsyftar tre aspekter, nämligen huruvida det föreligger ett hinder för de rättigheter som tillerkänns genom direktiv 2003/109, huruvida de avgifter som åläggs tredjelandsmedborgare är oproportionerliga samt jämförelsen mellan såväl tredjelandsmedborgare och unionsmedborgarna som mellan direktiven 2003/109 och 2004/38 vad beträffar beloppen för dessa avgifter.
45. It must be noted that the arguments of the parties focus on three elements, namely the existence or not of an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109, the disproportionate nature of the charges imposed on third-country nationals and the comparison between those nationals and Union citizens and, thus, between Directive 2003/109 and Directive 2004/38 as regards the amount of those charges.
46. The Commission does not contest either the principle of levying administrative charges for the issue of residence permits as provided for in Directive 2003/109 or the margin of discretion which the Member States have in the absence of a specific provision in that directive regulating the amount of such charges. However, it is of the opinion that, in the light of recital 10 to that directive, those charges must be reasonable and fair and they must not discourage third-country nationals who satisfy the conditions laid down by that directive from exercising the right of residence conferred on them by that directive. 47. De belopp som betalas i Nederländerna av tredjelandsmedborgare som ansöker om ställning som varaktigt bosatta, eller som ansöker om uppehållstillstånd i denna medlemsstat efter att ha beviljats denna ställning i en annan medlemsstat, är 7–27 gånger högre än dem som åläggs unionsmedborgare vid handläggning av ansökningar om uppehållstillstånd. Enligt kommissionen innebär dessa höga belopp, som hindrar utövandet av de rättigheter som tillerkänns genom direktiv 2003/109, ett åsidosättande av direktivets ändamålsenliga verkan.
47. In the Netherlands, the amounts paid by third-country nationals seeking long-term residence status or applying for a residence permit in that Member State having obtained that status in another Member State are 7 to 27 times greater than those imposed on Union citizens for the processing of their applications for residence permits. According to the Commission, those high amounts, which hinder the exercise of the rights enshrined in Directive 2003/109, harm the effectiveness of that directive. 48. Kommissionen har med stöd av skäl 2 i direktiv 2003/109 anfört att avgifternas belopp bör vara ”jämförbara” med beloppen för de avgifter som unionsmedborgare som utövar sin rätt till fri rörlighet måste erlägga för att erhålla liknande dokumentation. Kommissionen har i detta avseende medgett att den rättsliga ställningen för tredjelandsmedborgare och unionsmedborgare inte är identisk och att de inte tillerkänns samma rättigheter. Eftersom detta direktivs ändamål är analogt med ändamålet för direktiv 2004/38, anser kommissionen emellertid att det är oproportionerligt att beloppen för de avgifter som åläggs tredjelandsmedborgare för jämförbara handläggningsförfaranden med samma syfte är flera gånger högre än dem som har ansetts rimliga för unionsmedborgare vid tillämpningen av direktiv 2004/38. Det maximala belopp som fastställs enligt detta direktiv bör således betraktas som en viktig anvisning för att, avseende direktiv 2003/109, avgöra vilka belopp som är rättvisa och inte avskräcker de berörda från att ansöka om ställning som varaktigt bosatta.
48. Relying on recital 2 to Directive 2003/109, the Commission claims that the amount of the administrative charges required under that directive must be ‘comparable’ to that of the charges which Union citizens exercising their right to freedom of movement must pay to obtain similar documents. In that respect, the Commission recognises that the legal situation of third-country nationals and that of Union citizens is not identical and that they do not enjoy the same rights. However, since the purpose of that directive is analogous to that of Directive 2004/38, the Commission is of the opinion that it is disproportionate that, for comparable investigations pursuing similar aims, the amount of the charges imposed on third-country nationals is several times greater than that considered reasonable for Union citizens under Directive 2004/38. The maximum amount set by the latter directive must thus be regarded as an important indicator for determining a fair amount for the purposes of Directive 2003/109 and an amount not liable to discourage the persons concerned from applying for long-term resident status. 49. Kommissionen har även hänvisat till punkterna 74 och 75 i dom av den 29 april 2010 i mål C‑92/07, kommissionen mot Nederländerna (REU 2010, s. I‑3683), för att understryka att de ifrågavarande avgifterna är oproportionerliga. Domstolen fastställde genom detta avgörande att Konungariket Nederländerna hade åsidosatt sina skyldigheter enligt unionsrätten genom att för utfärdande av uppehållstillstånd till turkiska medborgare inrätta och bibehålla avgifter som var oproportionerliga i förhållande till dem som tillämpades på unionsmedborgare. I förevarande fall måste de avgifter som nederländska myndigheter tar ut för utfärdande av handlingar enligt direktiv 2003/109 i ännu högre grad betraktas som oproportionerliga.
49. In order to highlight the disproportionate nature of the charges in issue in the present case, the Commission refers to paragraphs 74 and 75 in Case C‑92/07 Commission v Netherlands [2010] ECR I‑3683, in which the Court held that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by imposing and maintaining, for the issue of residence permits to Turkish nationals, disproportionate charges as compared to those required from nationals of Member States, had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law. In the present case, the Commission argues that the amount of the charges required by the Dutch authorities of the issue for the documents laid down by Directive 2003/109 must, a fortiori , also be found to be disproportionate. 50. Konungariket Nederländerna har bestritt att direktiv 2004/38 har relevans för att fastställa omfattningen av begreppet ”rättvisa” som rör förfarandet och förekommer i skäl 10 i direktiv 2003/109. Enligt denna medlemsstat antogs direktiv 2004/38 senare än direktiv 2003/109 och gäller en särskild rättslig ram. Medan uppehållstillstånd som beviljas enligt direktiv 2004/38 enbart har en förklarande verkan mot bakgrund av att unionsmedborgares grundläggande rätt att fritt röra sig och vistas i medlemsstaterna följer av själva EUF-fördraget, har uppehållstillstånd som utfärdas med stöd av direktiv 2003/109 en konstituerande verkan.
50. The Kingdom of the Netherlands contests the relevance of Directive 2004/38 for the purposes of defining the scope of the concept of a ‘fair’ procedure contained in recital 10 to Directive 2003/109. According to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Directive 2004/38 is more recent than Directive 2003/109 and concerns a different legal framework. Indeed, while the residence permit granted under Directive 2004/38 has only declaratory effect, given that the fundamental right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States stems from the FEU Treaty itself, the residence permit granted under Directive 2003/109 creates a right.
51. Similarly, that Member State contends that the Commission’s action does not take the history of Directive 2003/109 into account. The EU legislature expressly decided not to lay down a provision relating to the levying of charges, since a proposal of the Commission to this effect had been rejected. It therefore chose to leave to the Member States the power to determine the amount of charges payable under that directive. 52. Enligt Konungariket Nederländerna kan slutsatserna i domen i det ovannämnda målet kommissionen mot Nederländerna inte tillämpas i förevarande fall. Även om domstolen har bedömt att de ifrågavarande avgifterna i detta mål var oproportionerliga, gjordes denna bedömning mot bakgrund av den ”standstill”-klausul som föreskrivs i beslut 1/80. Detta beslut antogs den 19 september 1980 av associeringsrådet som inrättades genom avtalet om upprättandet av en associering mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och Turkiet, som undertecknades den 12 september 1963 i Ankara av Republiken Turkiet, å ena sidan, och av medlemsstaterna i EEG och gemenskapen, å andra sidan, och som ingicks, godkändes och bekräftades för gemenskapens räkning genom rådets beslut 64/732/EEG av den 23 december 1963 (EGT 1964, 217, s. 3685). Denna klausul utgör hinder för införande av nya begränsningar i den berörda medlemsstatens rättsordning. Även om artikel 59 i tilläggsprotokollet, som undertecknades i Bryssel den 23 november 1970 och ingicks, godkändes och bekräftades för gemenskapens räkning genom rådets förordning (EEG) nr 2760/72 av den 19 december 1972 (EGT L 293, s. 1; svensk specialutgåva, område 11, volym 1, s. 130), innehåller bestämmelser om att en jämförelse ska göras mellan de belopp turkiska medborgare måste betala och dem som åläggs unionsmedborgare, förekommer inget sådant krav, i direktiv 2003/109, på att en jämförelse mellan unionsmedborgare och varaktigt bosatta tredjelandsmedborgare ska företas. 52. According to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the judgment in Commission v Netherlands is not transposable to the present case. Firstly, although the Court has held that the charges in issue in the case which gave rise to that judgment were disproportionate, it did so in the light of the ‘standstill’ clause provided for by Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980, set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 29), which precludes the introduction of new restrictions into the legal order of the Member State concerned. Secondly, while Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60) requires a comparison between the amount of the charges levied on Turkish nationals and the amount of the charges sought from Union citizens, a requirement to compare the amount of the charges for Union citizens and those for third-country nationals does not appear in Directive 2003/109. 53. Konungariket Nederländerna har även gjort gällande att kommissionen inte har visat att tredjelandsmedborgare på grund av beloppen för de avgifter de måste erlägga hindras från att utöva sina rättigheter enligt direktiv 2003/109. Ansökningar från tredjelandsmedborgare om att beviljas ställning som varaktigt bosatta har snabbt ökat mellan åren 2006 och 2009, vilket inte alls ger intryck av att avgiftsbeloppen har en restriktiv verkan. Enbart den omständigheten att gällande avgifter vid ansökan om ställning som varaktigt bosatt skulle vara högre än de avgifter som föreskrivs för unionsmedborgare som ansöker om liknande handlingar är inte i sig synonymt med ett hinder. De utredningar som måste företas avseende ansökningar från tredjelandsmedborgare är dessutom betydligt mer djupgående än dem som genomförs vad gäller unionsmedborgare.
53. That Member State also asserts that the Commission has not shown that third-country nationals are, due to the amount of the charges levied, prevented from exercising the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109. The applications for the grant of long-term resident status submitted by those nationals increased rapidly between 2006 and 2009, which does not suggest that the amount of such administrative charges has a restrictive effect. Similarly, the mere fact that the charges in force for applications for long-term resident status are greater than those imposed on Union citizens applying for analogous documents is not in itself synonymous with an obstacle. Furthermore, the investigation to be carried out in the case of applications from third-country nationals is considerably more extensive than that in cases concerning Union citizens. 54. Republiken Grekland har i sin interventionsinlaga till stöd för Konungariket Nederländernas yrkanden gjort gällande att direktiven 2003/109 och 2004/38 har olika ändamål, samt har även påpekat att det föreligger en skillnad vad beträffar de villkor och förfaranden som för eskrivs i dessa direktiv.
54. The Hellenic Republic, in its statement in intervention in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, argues that Directive 2003/109 and Directive 2004/38 have different objectives and it also points out that there is a difference as regards the condit ions and procedures laid down by those directives. 55. För att fastställa de avgifter som ska tas ut för utfärdande av uppehållstillstånd eller uppehållskort till varaktigt bosatta tredjelandsmedborgare, anser denna medlemsstat att det är nödvändigt att beakta de motsvarande administrativa kostnaderna för de tjänster som tillhandahålls inte bara i samband med kontroll av uppehållsrätten, utan även vad gäller integrationen av tredjelandsmedborgarna, vilket utgör en förutsättning för förvärv av ställning som varaktigt bosatt. Även den ekonomiska balansen i det nationella systemet för att hantera invandringen i dess helhet måste enligt denna medlemsstat beaktas såsom ett skäl av allmänintresse.
55. According to that Member State, in order to set the charges levied for the issue of a residence permit to third-country nationals who are long-term residents, account must be taken of the amount of the contribution which corresponds to the cost of the administrative services provided for the verification not only of the right of residence, but also of the integration of the persons concerned, as a necessary condition for the acquisition of long-term resident status, and, moreover, of the financial balance of the national system of immigration administration as a whole, for reasons in the public interest.
56. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the amount of the charges levied on third-country nationals by the Kingdom of the Netherlands which is the subject-matter of the present action varies from EUR 188 to EUR 830. 57. Konungariket Nederländerna har som svar på de skriftliga frågor som domstolen har ställt förklarat vad de olika beloppen motsvarar.
57. In reply to written questions from the Court, the Kingdom of the Netherlands explained to what those amounts correspond.
58. Accordingly, a sum of EUR 201 is levied for the long-term EC residence permit issued by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to a third-country national pursuant to Article 8(2) of Directive 2003/109, a provision which comes under Chapter II of that directive. That permit is issued to third-country nationals who have acquired long-term resident status in accordance with Articles 4, 5 and 7(2) of that directive. 59. Beloppet på 433 euro motsvarar avgifter som åläggs tredjelandsmedborgare som, efter att ha förvärvat ställning som varaktigt bosatta i en första medlemsstat, med stöd av artikel 14.1 i direktiv 2003/109, ansöker om uppehållsrätt i Nederländerna. En sådan ansökan innefattar rätten att bedriva ekonomisk verksamhet som anställd eller egenföretagare, att studera eller att följa en yrkesutbildning enligt artikel 14.2 a och b.
59. The sum of EUR 433 corresponds to the charges levied on a third-country national who, having acquired long-term resident status in a first Member State, applies, under Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/109, for the right to reside in the Netherlands. Such an application for a residence permit covers the exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity or pursuit of studies or vocational training, in conformity with Article 14(2)(a) and (b) of that directive. 60. Vad gäller ansökningar om uppehållstillstånd för andra syften enligt artikel 14.2 c i direktiv 2003/109 åläggs tredjelandsmedborgarna ett belopp på 331 euro.
60. For applications for residence permits for ‘other purposes’, under Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2003/109, a sum of EUR 331 is charged to third-country nationals. 61. Vad beträffar de belopp som tillämpas på tredjelandsmedborgares familjemedlemmar som ansöker om uppehållstillstånd i Nederländerna med stöd av artikel 16 i direktiv 2003/109, görs det såväl i nämnda bestämmelse som i den nationella lagstiftningen åtskillnad på ansökningar som inges av familjemedlemmar till varaktigt bosatta när familjen redan har bildats i den första medlemsstaten där den bosatte har förvärvat sin ställning och de ansökningar som inges av familjemedlemmar när familjen inte har bildats i den första medlemsstaten. Medan ett belopp på 188 euro för den första kategorin av tredjelandsmedborgare tas ut från samtliga familjemedlemmar, är det för den andra kategorin ett belopp på 830 euro som åläggs den första familjemedlemmen som inger en ansökan med stöd av artikel 16 och ett belopp på 188 euro som alla övriga familjemedlemmar förpliktas att betala.
61. As regards the amounts chargeable to family members of third-country nationals seeking residence permits in the Netherlands pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 2003/109, both that directive and the national legislation distinguish between applications lodged by family members of a long-term resident when his/her family is already constituted in the first Member State in which that resident had acquired his/her status and applications lodged by family members when that family is not constituted in the first Member State. While, in respect of the first category of residents, a sum of EUR 188 is claimed from each family member, in respect of the second category, a sum of EUR 830 is claimed from the first family member who makes an application pursuant to Article 16 and a sum of EUR 188 is claimed from each of the other family members. 62. Vad beträffar de skyldigheter som åligger medlemsstaterna enligt direktiv 2003/109 avseende de avgifter som tredjelandsmedborgare och deras familjemedlemmar kan förpliktas betala för utfärdande av uppehållskort och uppehållstillstånd, ska det inledningsvis erinras om att det inte finns någon bestämmelse i direktivet som fastställer storleken på de avgifter som medlemsstaterna kan föreskriva för utfärdande av sådana handlingar. 62. In respect of the obligations of Member States under Directive 2003/109 regarding the charges levied on third-country nationals and on members of their family for the issue of residence permits, it should be noted, firstly, that no provision in that directive sets the amount of the charges that the Member States can claim for the issue of such documents. 63. Även om det i kommissionens förslag till direktiv 2003/109 angavs att uppehållstillstånd ska utfärdas gratis eller mot betalning av ett belopp som inte överstiger de avgifter som landets egna medborgare betalar för identitetshandlingar, har unionslagstiftaren vid antagandet av direktiv 2003/109, såsom Konungariket Nederländerna har gjort gällande, valt att inte återge någon sådan anvisning i direktivets text.
63. As the Kingdom of the Netherlands argues, while the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive provided for the issue of a residence permit free of charge or against payment of a sum not exceeding the charges required of nationals of the Member State concerned for the issue of identity cards, the EU legislature, by adopting Directive 2003/109, decided not to include such a provision in the directive.
64. It is thus undisputed, also by the Commission, that Member States may make the issue of the residence permits pursuant to Directive 2003/109 subject to the payment of charges and that, in fixing the amount of those charges, they enjoy a margin of discretion. 65. Det utrymme för skönsmässig bedömning som enligt direktiv 2003/109 tillkommer medlemsstaterna i detta avseende är emellertid inte obegränsat. Dessa stater får nämligen inte tillämpa nationell lagstiftning som kan äventyra fullgörandet av målen med ett direktiv och förta direktivet dess ändamålsenliga verkan (se, för ett liknande resonemang, dom av den 28 april 2011 i mål C‑61/11 PPU, El Dridi, REU 2011, s. I‑0000, punkt 55).
65. However, the discretion granted to Member States by Directive 2003/109 in that respect is not unlimited. They may not apply national rules which are liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by a directive and, therefore, deprive it of its effectiveness (see, to that effect, Case C‑61/11 PPU El Dridi [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 55). 66. Såsom framgår av skäl 4, 6 och 12 i direktiv 2003/109 är dess huvudsakliga ändamål att främja integrationen av tredjelandsmedborgare som är varaktigt bosatta i medlemsstaterna. Uppehållsrätten för varaktigt bosatta och deras familjemedlemmar i en annan medlemsstat i enlighet med vad som föreskrivs i kapitel III i direktivet har även som syfte att bidra till att förverkliga den inre marknaden som ett område med fri rörlighet för personer, såsom framgår av skäl 18 i direktivet.
66. As is apparent from recitals 4, 6 and 12 to Directive 2003/109, the principal purpose of that directive is the integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-term basis in the Member States. The right of residence of long-term residents and members of their family in another Member State, provided for by Chapter III of that directive, also aims to contribute to the effective attainment of an internal market as an area in which the free movement of persons is ensured, as is apparent from recital 18 to that directive.
67. Directive 2003/109, in particular Articles 4, 5, 7 and 14 to 16, establishes – both for the first category of third-country nationals coming under Chapter II and for the second category, for which applications for residence permits for another Member State fall within Chapter III – the specific procedural and substantive conditions which must be respected before the Member States concerned are to issue the residence permits applied for. In essence, the applicants must provide evidence that they have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to avoid becoming a burden on the Member State concerned, and must submit an application together with the supporting documents to the competent authorities.
68. Having regard to the objective pursued by Directive 2003/109 and the system which it puts in place, it should be noted that, where the third-country nationals satisfy the conditions and comply with the procedures laid down in that directive, they have the right to obtain long-term resident status as well as the other rights which stem from the grant of that status.
69. Therefore, while it is open to the Kingdom of the Netherlands to make the issue of residence permits under Directive 2003/109 subject to the levying of charges, the level at which those charges are set must not have either the object or the effect of creating an obstacle to the obtaining of the long-term resident status conferred by that directive, otherwise both the objective and the spirit of that directive would be undermined.
70. Charges which have a significant financial impact on third-country nationals who satisfy the conditions laid down by Directive 2003/109 for the grant of those residence permits could prevent them from claiming the rights conferred by that directive, contrary to recital 10 to that directive.
71. As may be seen from that recital, the set of rules governing the procedures for examination of applications for the acquisition of long-term resident status should not constitute a means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence.
72. Given the close relationship between the rights granted to third-country nationals by Chapter II of Directive 2003/109 and those which fall within Chapter III of that directive, the same considerations apply in respect of the applications for residence permits made, in accordance with Articles 14 to 16 of that directive, by third-country nationals and by members of their families in a Member State other than the one which granted the long-term resident status.
73. It follows that, in so far as the high amount of the charges levied on third-country nationals by the Kingdom of the Netherlands is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109, the Netherlands legislation undermines the objective pursued by that directive and deprives it of its effectiveness.
74. It should also be observed that, as noted in paragraph 65 of the present judgment, the discretion enjoyed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in setting the amount of the charges that may be levied on third-country nationals for the issue of residence permits under Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/109 is not unlimited and does not therefore permit the levying of charges which would be excessive in the light of their significant financial impact on those nationals.
75. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, the measures taken by national legislation transposing Directive 2003/109 must be suitable for achieving the objectives of that legislation and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.
76. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that the amount of the charges applicable to third-country nationals falling within the scope of Directive 2003/109 may vary depending on the type of residence applied for and the verifications which the Member State is required to carry out in that respect. As is apparent from paragraph 61 of the present judgment, the directive itself makes a distinction, in Article 16, concerning the issue of a residence permit to family members of a third-country national according to whether or not that family had been constituted in the Member State which granted that national his or her long-term resident status.
77. However, it should be noted that, in the present case, the amounts of the charges claimed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands vary within a range in which the lowest amount is about seven times higher than the amount to be paid to obtain a national identity card. Even if Dutch citizens and third-country nationals and the members of their families to whom Directive 2003/109 relates are not in identical situations, such a variation illustrates the disproportionate nature of the charges claimed pursuant to the national legislation in issue in the present case.
78. Since the charges levied by the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to national legislation implementing Directive 2003/109 are per se disproportionate and liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive, it is not necessary to examine the Commission’s additional argument that the charges levied on third-country nationals and their family members under that directive and those levied on Union citizens for the issue of similar documents pursuant to Directive 2004/38 should be compared.
79. Consequently, it must be held that, by applying (i) to third-country nationals seeking long-term resident status in the Netherlands, (ii) to those who, having acquired that status in a Member State other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are seeking to exercise the right to reside in that Member State, and (iii) to members of their families seeking authorisation to accompany or join them, excessive and disproportionate charges which are liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Rättegångskostnader Costs 80. Enligt artikel 69.2 första stycket i rättegångsreglerna ska tappande part förpliktas att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna, om detta har yrkats. I enlighet med artikel 69.4 första stycket i rättegångsreglerna ska de medlemsstater som har intervenerat i målet bära sina rättegångskostnader.
80. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(4), the Member States which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
81. Kommissionen har yrkat att Konungariket Nederländerna ska förpliktas att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna. Eftersom Konungariket Nederländerna har tappat målet, ska kommissionens yrkande bifallas. Republiken Grekland, som har intervenerat i målet, ska bära sina rättegångskostnader.
81. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Kingdom of the Netherlands has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. The Hellenic Republic, which has intervened in the proceedings, is to bear its own costs.
1. Declares that, by applying (i) to third-country nationals seeking long-term resident status in the Netherlands, (ii) to those who, having acquired that status in a Member State other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are seeking to exercise the right to reside in that Member State, and (iii) to members of their families seeking authorisation to accompany or join them, excessive and disproportionate administrative charges which are liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; 1) Konungariket Nederländerna har underlåtit att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt rådets direktiv 2003/109/EG av den 25 november 2003 om varaktigt bosatta tredjelandsmedborgares ställning, genom att, på tredjelandsmedborgare som ansöker om ställning som varaktigt bosatta i Nederländerna och på varaktigt bosatta i en annan medlemsstat än Nederländerna som ansöker om att utöva sin uppehållsrätt i Nederländerna samt på deras familjemedlemmar som ansöker om att tillåtas medfölja eller förena sig med dem, tillämpa avgifter som är orimligt höga och oproportionerliga och som kan medföra hinder för utövande av de rättigheter som tillerkänns enligt direktivet. 2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs; 2) Konungariket Nederländerna ska ersätta rättegångskostnaderna. 3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs. 3) Republiken Grekland ska bära sina rättegångskostnader. Top