Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,mt&lng2=cs,da,de,el,en,es,et,fi,fr,hu,it,lt,lv,mt,nl,pl,pt,sk,sl,sv,&val=357638:cs&page=
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 04:08:42+00:00
Document Index: 415929

Matched Legal Cases: ['Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'QORTI ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'QORTI ']

In Case C-413/99, Fil-kawża C-413/99,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between li għanda bħala suġġett talba magħmula lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, skond l-Artikolu 234 KE, mill-Immigration Appel Tribunal (ir-Renju Unit) intiża sabiex, fil-kawżi pendenti quddiem dik il-qorti bejn
Baumbast, Baumbast, R R and u
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), tingħata deċiżjoni preliminari dwar l-interpretazzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 18 KE u ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1612/68, tal-15 ta’ Ottubru 1968, dwar il-libertà tal-moviment għall-ħaddiema fi ħdan il-Komunità (ĠU L 257, p. 2), THE COURT, IL-QORTI TAL-ĠUSTIZZJA, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, komposta minn G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken (Relatur), N. Colneric u S. von Bahr, Presidenti ta’ Awla, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues u C. W. A. Timmermans, Imħallfin, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Avukat Ġenerali: L. A. Geelhoed,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, Reġistratur: L. Hewlett, Amministratur,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: wara li kkunsidrat l-osservazzjonijiet bil-miktub ippreżentati: - Mr and Mrs Baumbast, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento and Idanella Baumbast, by N. Blake QC and L. Fransman QC, instructed by M. Davidson, Solicitor, and R, by N. Blake QC and S. Harrison, Barrister, instructed by B. Andonian, Solicitor, – għas-Sur u għas-Sinjura Baumbast, kif ukoll għal Maria Fernanda Sarmiento u Idanella Baumbast, minn N. Blake u L. Fransman, QC, bħala rappreżentanti ta’ M. Davidson, solicitor, u għal R, minn N. Blake u S. Harrison, barrister, bħala rappreżentanti ta’ B. Andonian, solicitor, - the United Kingdom Government, by J. E. Collins, acting as Agent, and P. Saini, Barrister, – għall-Gvern tar-Renju Unit, minn J. E. Collins, bħala aġent, assistit minn P. Saini, barrister,
- the German Government, by W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön, acting as Agents, – għall-Gvern Ġermaniż, minn W.-D. Plessing u B. Muttelsee-Schön, bħala aġenti,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by N. Yerrell and C. O'Reilly, acting as Agents, – għall-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej, minn N. Yerrell u C. O'Reilly, bħala aġenti,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing, wara li rat ir-rapport għas-seduta, after hearing the oral observations of Mr and Mrs Baumbast, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento and Idanella Baumbast, of R, of the United Kingdom Government and of the Commission, at the hearing on 6 March 2001, wara li semgħet l-osservazzjonijiet orali tas-Sinjuri Baumbast kif ukoll ta’ Maria Fernanda Sarmiento u ta’ Idanella Baumbast, ta’ R, tal-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u tal-Kummissjoni, fis-seduta tas-6 ta’ Marzu 2001,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 July 2001, wara li semgħet il-konklużjonijiet ta’ l-Avukat Ġenerali, ippreżentati fis-seduta tal-5 ta’ Lulju 2001,
gives the following tagħti l-preżenti
1 By order of 28 May 1999, received at the Court on 28 October 1999, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC four questions on the interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475). 1. Permezz ta’ digriet tat-28 ta’ Mejju 1999, li wasal fil-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fit-28 ta’ Ottubru ta’ wara, l-Immigration Appeal Tribunal ressaq, skond l-Artikolu 234 KE, erba’ domandi preliminari dwar l-interpretazzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 18 KE u ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1612/68, tal-15 ta’ Ottubru 1968, dwar il-libertà tal-moviment għall-ħaddiema fi ħdan il-Komunità (ĠU L 257, p. 2).
2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between, first, Mr and Mrs Baumbast, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento and Idanella Baumbast (together `the Baumbast family') and, second, R, on the one hand, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (`the Secretary of State'), on the other, concerning the latter's refusal to grant them leave to remain within the territory of the United Kingdom. 2. Dawn id-domandi tqajmu fil-kuntest ta’ kawżi bejn, minn naħa, is-Sinjuri Baumbast kif ukoll Maria Fernanda Sarmiento u Idanella Baumbast (iktar ’il quddiem, flimkien, il-“familja Baumbast”) u, min-naħa l-oħra, R, kontra s-Secretary of State for the Home Department (iktar ’il quddiem is-“Secretary of State”) dwar ir-rifjut minn dan ta’ l-aħħar li joħroġ awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ residenza fit-territorju tar-Renju Unit.
Legal background Il-kuntest ġuridiku Community legislation Id-dispożizzjonjiet tad-dritt Komunitarju 3 Under Article 17 EC: 3. Skond l-Artikolu 17 KE:
`1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship. “1. Qed tiġi stabbilita ċ-Ċittadinanza ta’ l-Unjoni. Kull persuna li għandha ċ-ċittadinanza ta’ Stat Membru għandha tkun ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni. Iċ-Ċittadinanza ta’ l-Unjoni għandha tikkumplimenta u mhux tissostitwixxi iċ-ċittadinanza nazzjonali. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.' 2. Iċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni għandhom igawdu d-drittijiet mogħtija minn dan it-Trattat u jkunu marbutin bid-dmirijiet imposti minnu.”
4 Article 18(1) EC provides that every citizen of the Union is to have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the EC Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. 4. L-Artikolu 18(1) KE jipprovdi li kull ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni għandu d-dritt li jmur minn post għal ieħor u li joqgħod liberament fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri, salvi l-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti fit-Trattat KE u fid-dispożizzjonijiet meħuda biex dan jitwettaq.
5 Articles 10 to 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 provide as follows: 5. L-Artikoli 10 sa 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 jiddikjaraw hekk:
`Article 10 “ Artikolu 10 1. The following shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State: 1. Dawn li ġejjin għandhom, irrispettivament miċ-ċittadinanza tagħhom, ikollhom id-dritt li jinstallaw ruħhom ma’ ħaddiem li hu ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru wieħed u li hu mpjegat fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor: (a) his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants; a) il-mara [il-konjuġi] tiegħu u d-dixxendenti tagħhom li huma taħt l-età ta’ 21 sena jew huma dipendenti; (b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse. b) qraba dipendenti fil-linja axxendenti tal-ħaddiem u [ta]l-mara [tal-konjuġi] tiegħu. 2. Member States shall facilitate the admission of any member of the family not coming within the provisions of paragraph 1 if dependent on the worker referred to above or living under his roof in the country whence he comes. 2. Stati Membri għandhom jiffaċilitaw id-dħul ta’ kwalunkwe membru tal-familja li ma jaqax taħt il-paragrafu 1 jekk ikun dipendenti fuq il-ħaddiem li saret referenza għalih hawn fuq jew ikun qed jgħix taħt is-saqaf tiegħu fil-pajjiż mnejn ġie. 3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the worker must have available for his family housing considered as normal for national workers in the region where he is employed; this provision, however, must not give rise to discrimination between national workers and workers from the other Member States. 3. Għall-iskopijiet ta’ paragrafi 1 u 2, il-ħaddiem għandu jkollu disponibbli għall-familja tiegħu dar għall-abitazzjoni meqjusa bħala normali għall-ħaddiema ċittadini ta’ dak l-Istat fir-reġjun fejn hu jkun impjegat; din id-dispożizzjoni, madanakollu m’għandux joħloq [m’għandhiex toħloq] diskriminazzjoni bejn ħaddiema ċittadini u ħaddiema mill-Istati Membri l-oħra. Article 11 Artikolu 11 Where a national of a Member State is pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State, his spouse and those of the children who are under the age of 21 years or dependent on him shall have the right to take up any activity as an employed person throughout the territory of that same State, even if they are not nationals of any Member State. Fejn ċittadin ta’ xi Stat Membru jkun qed iwettaq attività bħala mpjegat jew persuna li taħdem għal rasha fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor, il-konjuġi tagħha [tiegħu] u t-tfal li huma taħt l-età ta’ 21 sena jew dipendenti fuqu għandu jkollhom id-dritt li jidħlu għal kwalunkwe attività bħala persuna mpjegata fit-territorju kollu ta’ dak l-istess Stat, anki jekk ma jkunux persuni ċittadini ta’ xi Stat Membru. Article 12 Artikolu 12 The children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State shall be admitted to that State's general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if such children are residing in its territory. It-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru li hu jew kien impjegata fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor għandhom ikunu ammessi għall-korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali, ta’ apprendistat [taħriġ] u professjonali ta’ dak l-Istat taħt l-istess kondizzjonijiet bħal ċittadini ta’ dak l-Istat, jekk dawn it-tfal ikunu qegħdin jgħixu fit-territorju tiegħu. Member States shall encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best possible conditions.' Stati Membri għandhom jinkoraġġixu l-isforzi kollha biex dawn it-tfal ikunu jistgħu jattendu għal dawn il-korsijiet taħt l-aħjar kondizzjonijiet possibbli.” 6 Under the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26), Member States are to grant the right of residence to nationals of Member States who do not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law and to members of their families as defined in Article 1(2) of that directive, provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. 6. Skond l-ewwel subparagrafu ta’ l-Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 90/364/KEE, tat-28 ta’ Ġunju 1990, dwar id-dritt ta’ residenza (ĠU L 180, p. 26), l-Istati Membri għandhom jagħtu d-dritt ta’ residenza liċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Istati Membri li ma jgawdux minn dan id-dritt taħt dispożizzjonijiet oħra tad-dritt Komunitarju, kif ukoll lill-membri tal-familja tagħhom kif iddefiniti fl-Artikolu 1(2) ta’ din l-istess direttiva, bil-kundizzjoni li jkollhom, għalihom stess u għall-membri tal-familja tagħhom, assigurazzjoni kontra l-mard li tkopri r-riskji kollha fl-Istat Membru ospitanti u riżorsi biżżejjed sabiex jiġi evitat li jsiru piż għas-servizzi soċjali ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti matul il-perijodu ta’ residenza tagħhom. 7 The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides that the resources referred to in the first subparagraph of that paragraph are to be deemed sufficient where they are higher than the level of resources below which the host Member State may grant social assistance to its nationals, taking into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and, where appropriate, the personal circumstances of persons admitted pursuant to Article 1(2) of that directive. 7. Skond it-tieni subparagrafu ta’ l-Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva 90/364, ir-riżorsi msemmija fl-ewwel subparagrafu jkunu biżżejjed meta jkunu ogħla mil-livell minimu ta’ riżorsi li jekk ma jintlaħaqx tkun tista’ tingħata assistenza soċjali mill-Istat Membru ospitanti liċ-ċittadini tiegħu, fid-dawl taċ-ċirkustanzi personali ta’ l-applikant u, jekk ikun il-każ, dawk tal-persuni ammessi skond l-Artikolu 1(2) ta’ din id-direttiva. 8 The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides that, where the second subparagraph of that paragraph cannot be applied, the resources of the applicant are to be deemed sufficient if they are higher than the level of the minimum social security pension paid by the host Member State. 8. It-tielet subparagrafu ta’ l-Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva 90/364 jipprovdi li, meta t-tieni subparagrafu ma jistax jiġi applikat, ir-riżorsi ta’ l-applikant għandhom jitqiesu bħala biżżejjed jekk ikunu ogħla mil-livell tal-pensjoni minima tas-sigurtà soċjali mħallsa mill-Istat Membru ospitanti. 9 Under Article 1(2) of Directive 90/364: 9. Skond l-Artikolu 1(2) tad-Direttiva 90/364:
`The following shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves in another Member State with the holder of the right of residence: “Is-segwenti għandhom, irrispettivament min-nazzjonalità tagħhom, ikollhom id-dritt li jistabbilixxu ruħhom fi Stat Membru ieħor mad-detentur tad-dritt ta’ residenza:
(a) his or her spouse and their descendants who are dependants; a) il-mara jew ir-raġel tiegħu/tagħha u d-dixxendenti tagħhom li huma dipendenti; (b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the holder of the right of residence and of his or her spouse.' b) qraba dipendenti fil-linja ta’ l-axxendenti tad-detentur tad-dritt ta’ residenza u l-mara jew ir-ragel tiegħu/tagħha.” 10 Article 3 of Directive 90/364 provides that the right of residence is to remain for as long as beneficiaries of that right fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1 of that directive. 10. L-Artikolu 3 tad-Direttiva 90/364 jipprovdi li d-dritt ta’ residenza jibqa’ sakemm il-benefiċċjarji ta’ dan id-dritt jissodisfaw il-kundizzjonijiet previsti fl-Artikolu 1 ta’ din id-direttiva. National legislation Id-dispożizzjonjiet nazzjonali 11 Section 7(1) of the Immigration Act 1988 provides: 11. L-Artikolu 7(1) ta’ l-Immigration Act 1988 (Liġi ta’ l-1998 dwar l-immigrazzjoni) jipprovdi:
`A person shall not under the [Immigration Act 1971] require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in any case in which he is entitled to do so by virtue of an enforceable Community right or of any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.' “Persuna m’għandhiex titlob l-awtorizzazzjoni sabiex tidħol jew tibqa’ fir-Renju Unit skond [l-Immigration Act 1988] meta tkun intitolata tagħmel hekk bis-saħħa ta’ dritt Komunitarju li hija tista’ tinvoka direttament jew bis-saħħa ta’ xi dispożizzjoni oħra adottata taħt l-Artikolu 2(2) tal-European Communities Act 1972 [Liġi ta’ l-1972 dwar il-Komunitajiet Ewropej].” 12 Article 3 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 (SI 1994, No 1895; `the EEA Order') lays down the general principle that nationals of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3; `the EEA Agreement') and the members of their families are to be admitted to the United Kingdom on production of a valid national identity card or passport. 12. L-Artikolu 3 ta’ l-Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 (Digriet ta’ l-1994 dwar l-immigrazzjoni miż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea, 1994 SI 1895, iktar ’il quddiem l-“EEA Order”) jistabbilixxi l-prinċipju ġenerali li ċ-ċittadini ta’ parti kontraenti fil-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea, tat-2 ta’ Mejju 1992 (ĠU 1994, L 1, p. 3, iktar ’il quddiem il-“Ftehim ŻEE”), kif ukoll il-membri tal-familja tagħhom, għandhom jiġu aċċettati fir-Renju Unit fuq sempliċi preżentazzjoni ta’ dokument ta’ identità jew ta’ passaport li jkunu validi. 13 Under Article 4(1) of the EEA Order, a `qualified person' is to be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for as long as he remains a qualified person. That right is extended to family members including spouses by Article 4(2) of the EEA Order. 13. Skond l-Artikolu 4(1) ta’ l-EEA Order, “persuna eliġibbli” għandha d-dritt tirrisjedi fir-Renju Unit sakemm tgawdi minn din id-deskrizzjoni. Dan id-dritt huwa estiż għall-membri tal-familja, inkluż il-konjuġi, bl-Artikolu 4(2) ta’ l-EEA Order. 14 According to Article 6 of the EEA Order, a `qualified person' means, inter alia, a national of a State which is a contracting party to the EEA Agreement who undertakes in the United Kingdom the activities of a worker. 14. Skond l-Artikolu 6 ta’ l-EEA Order, jikkostitwixxi tali “persuna eliġibbli”, b’mod partikolari, iċ-ċittadin ta’ parti kontraenti fil-Ftehim ŻEE li jeżerċita attività bħala ħaddiem fir-Renju Unit. 15 Paragraph 255 of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395) 1994 (`the Immigration Rules') provides: 15. Il-punt 255 tal-United Kingdom Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395) (Regoli dwar l-immigrazzjoni adottati mill-House of Commons tar-Renju Unit fl-1994, iktar ’il quddiem l-“Immigration Rules”) jipprovdi:
`An EEA national (other than a student) and the family member of such a person who has been issued with a residence permit or residence document valid for five years and who has remained in the United Kingdom in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 EEA Order for four years and continues to do so may, on application, have his residence permit or residence document (as the case may be) endorsed to show permission to remain in the United Kingdom indefinitely.' “Ċittadin taż-ŻEE (apparti studenti), jew il-membru tal-familja ta’ tali persuna, li jkun kiseb permess ta’ residenza jew dritt ta’ residenza validu għal ħames snin u li għex fir-Renju Unit, in konformità mad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-EEA Order 1994, għal erba’ snin u għadu jgħix fir-Renju Unit, jista’, wara applikazzjoni min-naħa tiegħu, jkollu l-permess ta’ residenza tiegħu jew, jekk ikun il-każ, id-dokument li jagħtih id-dritt ta’ residenza, immarkat b’indikazzjoni li huwa awtorizzat jgħix għal żmien indefinit fit-territorju tar-Renju Unit.” The main proceedings Il-kawżi prinċipali Baumbast Il-kawża Baumbast 16 Mrs Baumbast, a Colombian national, married Mr Baumbast, a German national, in the United Kingdom in May 1990. Their family consists of two daughters, the elder, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento, Mrs Baumbast's natural daughter, who is a Colombian national and the younger, Idanella Baumbast, who has dual German and Colombian nationality. 16. Is-Sinjura Baumbast, ta’ nazzjonalità Kolumbjana, iżżewġet fir-Renju Unit, f’Mejju 1990, lis-Sur Baumbast, li huwa ċittadin Ġermaniż. Il-familja tagħhom hija magħmula minn żewġt ibniet, il-kbira, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento, li hija l-bint naturali tas-Sinjura Baumbast u li hija ta’ nazzjonalità Kolumbjana, u ż-żgħira, Idanella Baumbast, li għandha nazzjonalità doppja, dik Ġermaniża u dik Kolumbjana.
17 According to the order for reference, for the purposes of the reference for a preliminary ruling, the parties to the main proceedings have agreed that, as regards questions of Community law, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento is to be treated as a member of Mr Baumbast's family. She is therefore referred to in the order for reference as one of the two children of that family. 17. Mid-digriet tar-rinviju jirriżulta li, għall-ħtiġijiet tat-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari, il-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali qablu li, fir-rigward ta’ kwistjonijiet ta’ dritt Komunitarju, Maria Fernanda Sarmiento hija kkunsidrata wkoll bħala membru tal-familja tas-Sur Baumbast. Għaldaqstant, fid-digriet tar-rinviju hija indikata bħala waħda miż-żewġt itfal ta’ din il-familja. 18 In June 1990, the members of the Baumbast family were granted residence permits/documents valid for five years. Between 1990 and 1993, Mr Baumbast pursued an economic activity in the United Kingdom, initially as an employed person and then as head of his own company. However, since that company failed and he was unable to obtain a sufficiently well-paid job in the United Kingdom, he has been employed since 1993 by German companies in China and Lesotho. Although Mr Baumbast has from time to time sought work in the United Kingdom since that date, his employment situation had not changed at the time of the order for reference. 18. F’Ġunju 1990, il-membri tal-familja Baumbast ingħataw permess ta’ residenza validu għal ħames snin. Bejn l-1990 u l-1993, is-Sur Baumbast eżerċita attività ekonomika fir-Renju Unit, inizjalment bħala impjegat u mbagħad bħala kap ta’ impriża. Madankollu, wara li l-impriża tiegħu falliet u minħabba li ma sabx impjieg imħallas tajjeb biżżejjed fir-Renju Unit, huwa ħadem, wara l-1993, ma’ kumpanniji Ġermaniżi li joperaw fiċ-Ċina u fil-Lesoto. Minkejja li s-Sur Baumbast baqa’, minn dak iż-żmien, ifittex xogħol b’mod regolari fir-Renju Unit, il-pożizzjoni professjonali ma kinitx inbidlet fid-data tad-digriet tar-rinviju. 19 During the material period, Mr and Mrs Baumbast owned a house in the United Kingdom and their daughters went to school there. They did not receive any social benefits and, having comprehensive medical insurance in Germany, they travelled there, when necessary, for medical treatment. 19. Matul il-perijodu kkunsidrat, is-Sinjuri Baumbast kellhom dar fir-Renju Unit u t-tfal tagħhom kienu jattendu l-iskola hemmhekk. Huma ma kinux jirċievu benefiċċji soċjali u peress li kienu koperti b’assigurazzjoni medika sħiħa fil-Ġermanja, huma kienu jmorru hemmhekk, meta kien ikollhom bżonn, sabiex jirċievu kura medika. 20 In May 1995, Mrs Baumbast applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom for herself and for the other members of her family. In January 1996, the Secretary of State refused to renew Mr Baumbast's residence permit and the residence documents of Mrs Baumbast and her children. 20. F’Mejju 1995, is-Sinjura Baumbast applikat għal awtorizzazzjoni ta’ residenza għal żmien indefinit (“indefinite leave to remain”) fir-Renju Unit għaliha stess u għall-membri l-oħra tal-familja tagħha. F’Jannar 1996, is-Secretary of State irrifjuta li jġedded il-permess ta’ residenza tas-Sur Baumbast kif ukoll id-dokumenti ta’ residenza tas-Sinjura Baumbast u tat-tfal tagħha.
21 On 12 January 1998, that refusal was brought before the Immigration Adjudicator (United Kingdom). He found that Mr Baumbast was neither a worker nor a person having a general right of residence under Directive 90/364. As regards the children, the Adjudicator decided that they enjoyed an independent right of residence under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. Moreover, he held that Mrs Baumbast enjoyed a right of residence for a period co-terminous with that during which her children exercised rights under Article 12 of that regulation. According to the Adjudicator, Mrs Baumbast's rights flowed from the obligation on Member States under that provision to encourage all efforts to enable children to attend courses in the host Member State under the best possible conditions. 21. Fit-12 ta’ Jannar 1998, dan ir-rifjut kien is-suġġett ta’ rikors quddiem l-Immigration Adjudicator (ir-Renju Unit). Dan irrileva li s-Sur Baumbast la kien ħaddiem u lanqas ma’ kien persuna li għandha dritt ġenerali ta’ residenza fis-sens tad-Direttiva 90/364. Fir-rigward tat-tfal, l-Immigration Adjudicator iddeċieda li dawn kienu jgawdu minn dritt ta’ residenza f’isimhom stess bis-saħħa ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68. Barra minn hekk, huwa ddeċieda li s-Sinjura Baumbast kienet tibbenefika minn dritt ta’ residenza għal perijodu li jikkorrispondi għal dak li matulu t-tfal tagħha jgawdu d-drittijiet previsti fl-Artikolu 12 ta’ dan ir-regolament. Skond l-Immigration Adjudicator, id-drittijiet tas-Sinjura Baumbast kienu joħorġu mill-obbligu impost fuq l-Istati Membri, bis-saħħa ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, li jinkoraġġixxu l-isforzi sabiex it-tfal isegwu korsijiet fl-Istat Membru ospitanti fl-aħjar kundizzjonijiet. 22 Mr Baumbast appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the Adjudicator's decision in his regard. The Secretary of State lodged a cross-appeal before that tribunal against the Adjudicator's decision regarding Mrs Baumbast and her two children. 22. Is-Sur Baumbast appella mid-deċiżjoni ta’ l-Immigration Adjudicator fir-rigward tiegħu quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju. Min-naħa tiegħu, is-Secretary of State appella quddiem dik il-qorti mid-deċiżjoni fil-parti li tikkonċerna lis-Sinjura Baumbast u liż-żewġt itfal tagħha. R Il-kawża R 23 R, a United States citizen, has, as a result of her first marriage to a French national, two children who have dual French and United States nationality. In 1990, she moved to the United Kingdom in her capacity as the spouse of a Community national exercising rights conferred by the EC Treaty and was granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom until October 1995. 23. R, ta’ nazzjonalità Amerikana, hija l-omm ta’ żewġ itfal, mill-ewwel żwieġ tagħha ma’ ċittadin Franċiż, li għandhom nazzjonalità doppja, dik Franċiża u dik Amerikana. Hija stabbiliet ruħha fir-Renju Unit fl-1990 bħala konjuġi ta’ ċittadin Komunitarju li tgawdi mid-drittijiet mogħtija mit-Trattat KE u ġiet awtorizzata tgħix fir-Renju Unit sa Ottubru 1995.
24 R and her first husband were divorced in September 1992 but, as no measures were taken at that time by the Secretary of State affecting R's immigration status, she continued to reside in the United Kingdom. The divorce settlement provided that the children were to reside with their mother in England and Wales for a period of at least five years after the date of the divorce or until such other time as agreed by the parties. After the divorce, the children had regular contact with their father, who still resides and works in the United Kingdom and who shares responsibility with their mother for their upbringing from both an emotional and financial point of view. 24. R u l-ewwel raġel tagħha ddivorzjaw f’Settembru 1992 iżda f’dak iż-żmien is-Secretary of State ma ħa ebda miżura fir-rigward ta’ l-istatus ta’ immigranta ta’ R u din baqgħet tgħix fir-Renju Unit. Skond il-kundizzjonijiet applikabbli għad-divorzju, it-tfal kellhom jibqgħu jgħixu ma’ ommhom l-Ingilterra jew f’Wales għal perijodu ta’ mill-inqas ħames snin mid-data tad-divorzju jew għal kull tul ta’ żmien ieħor iddeterminat bi qbil bejn il-partijiet. Wara d-divorzju, it-tfal kellhom kuntatti regolari ma’ missierhom, li baqa’ jgħix u jaħdem fir-Renju Unit u li flimkien ma’ ommhom kien responsabbli għall-edukazzjoni tagħhom, kemm mill-aspett emozzjonali u kif ukoll mill-aspett finanzjarju.
25 The file in the main proceedings also shows that, during her residence in the United Kingdom, R purchased a house and established a business as an interior designer in which she has invested substantial sums of money. She married a United Kingdom national in 1997. 25. Mill-proċess tal-kawża prinċipali jirriżulta wkoll li, matul ir-residenza tagħha fir-Renju Unit, R xtrat dwar u fetħet aġenzija li tispeċjalizza fid-disinn intern u li fiha investiet somom sostanzjali. Fl-1997 hija żżewġet mill-ġdid, din id-darba lil ċittadin Ingliż. 26 In October 1995, an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom was made under domestic law on behalf of R and her two daughters. On 3 December 1996, the children were granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as members of the family of a migrant worker. Mrs R's application was refused, however, on the ground that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the family situation was so exceptional as to justify the exercise of his discretion. In his view, the children were young enough to adapt to life in the United States if they had to accompany their mother there. 26. F’Ottubru 1995 tressqet applikazzjoni għal awtorizzazzjoni għal residenza għal żmien indefinit fir-Renju Unit f’isem R u ż-żewġt itfal tagħha skond id-dritt nazzjonali. Fit-3 ta’ Diċembru 1996 it-tfal ingħataw dritt ta’ residenza għal żmien indefinit fir-Renju Unit bħala membri tal-familja ta’ ħaddiem migrant. L-applikazzjoni fir-rigward ta’ R madankollu ġiet miċħuda peress li s-Secretary of State ma kienx konvint li s-sitwazzjoni tal-familja kienet eċċezzjonali b’tali mod li tiġġustifika l-eżerċizzju tas-setgħa diskrezzjonali tiegħu. Fil-fehma tiegħu t-tfal kienu għadhom żgħar biżżejjed sabiex jadattaw ruħhom għall-ħajja fl-Istati Uniti jekk imorru hemmhekk ma’ ommhom. 27 One of the issues raised in the action brought before the Adjudicator against the Secretary of State's refusal to grant R indefinite leave to remain was whether that refusal would interfere with her children's Community law rights to be educated and to reside in the United Kingdom and with the right to family life. The Adjudicator dismissed that application by a decision against which R appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. 27. Waħda mid-domandi mqajma fil-kuntest tar-rikors imressaq quddiem l-Immigration Adjudicator kontra r-rifjut tas-Secretary of State li jawtorizza dritt ta’ residenza għal R għal żmien indefinit tikkonċerna l-kwistjoni jekk dan ir-rifjut kienx ta’ natura li jippreġudika d-drittijiet li kellhom it-tfal tagħha taħt id-dritt Komunitarju li jistudjaw u jgħixu fir-Renju Unit, kif ukoll id-dritt għall-ħajja tal-familja. L-Immigration Adjudicator ċaħad dan ir-rikors b’deċiżjoni li minnha R appellat quddiem l-Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The questions referred for preliminary ruling Id-domandi preliminari 28 Taking the view that the cases before it depended on the interpretation of Article 18 EC and Regulation No 1612/68, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 28. Peress li kkunsidra li l-kawżi li kellu quddiemu kienu jeħtieġu l-interpretazzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 18 KE u tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, l-Immigration Appeal Tribunal iddeċieda li jissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemu u li jagħmel id-domandi preliminari segwenti lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizza:
`The questions in common “Id-domandi komuni għaż-żewġ kawżi Question 1 1) a)	It-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li jkunu huma stess ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni u li stabbilixew ruħhom fi Stat Membru matul il-perijodu li kienu qegħdin jattendu l-iskola primarja filwaqt li missierhom (jew ġenitur tagħhom) kien jeżerċita drittijiet ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem f’dan l-Istat Membru li mhuwiex ċittadin tiegħu (‘pajjiż ospitanti’) għandhom dritt ta’ residenza fil-pajjiż ospitanti sabiex isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali, in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1612/68?
(a) Are children of a citizen of the European Union who are themselves such citizens and who have installed themselves in primary education during the exercise by their father (or parent) of rights of residence as a worker in another Member State of which he is not a national ("the host State") entitled to reside in the host State in order to undergo general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation No 1612/68? b) Safejn ir-risposta għad-domanda preċedenti tista’ tvarja skond dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi: (b) In so far as the answer to the preceding question may vary in circumstances where: i) il-ġenituri jkunu divorzjati,
(i) their parents are divorced; ii) ġenitur wieħed biss ikun ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea u dan il-ġenitur ma jkunx għadu jaħdem fil-pajjiż ospitanti;
(ii) only one parent is a citizen of the European Union and that parent has ceased to be a worker within the host State; iii) it-tfal stess mhumiex ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea; (iii) the children are not themselves citizens of the European Union; liema huma l-kriterji li l-awtoritajiet nazzjonali għandhom japplikaw?
what criteria are to be applied by the national authorities? 2) Fil-każ li t-tfal jibbenefikaw minn dritt ta’ residenza f’pajjiż ospitanti sabiex hemmhekk isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament (KEE) Nru 1612/68, l-obbligu li għandu l-pajjiż ospitanti biex jinkoraġġixxi ‘l-isforzi kollha biex dawn it-tfal ikunu jistgħu jattendu għal dawn il-korsijiet taħt l-aħjar kondizzjonijiet possibbli’ għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li jippermetti lill-ġenitur li effettivament huwa responsabbli għall-kura tat-tfal (‘primary carer’), irrispettivament minn jekk ikunx jew le ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, sabiex jgħix magħhom b’mod li jiġi ffaċilitat l-eżerċizzju tad-dritt imsemmi minkejja l-fatt li:
Question 2 i) il-ġenituri tagħhom ikunu divorzjati, jew
Where children have the right to reside in a host State in order to undergo general education[al] courses pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation No 1612/68, is the obligation of the host State to "encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best possible conditions" to be interpreted as entitling their primary carer, whether or not a citizen of the Union, to reside with them in order to facilitate such a right notwithstanding: ii) missierhom, li huwa ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, ma jkunx għadu jaħdemu fil-pajjiż ospitanti? (i) their parents are divorced; or Id-domandi partikolari għall-kawża Baumbast
(ii) the father who is a citizen of the European Union ceases to be a worker within the host State? 3) a)	Fid-dawl tal-fatti fil-kawża tas-Sur Baumbast, dan jista’, bħala ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, jibbenefika minn dritt ta’ residenza applikabbli direttament fi Stat Membru ieħor ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 18 KE (li qabel kien l-Artikolu 8A) meta ma jkunx għadu jibbenefika minn drittijiet ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 39 KE (li qabel kien l-Artikolu 48) u meta ma jibbenefikax minn dritt ta’ residenza fil-pajjiż ospitanti bis-saħħa ta’ xi dispożizzjoni oħra tad-dritt Komunitarju?
The questions exclusive to the Baumbast case b) Fl-affermattiv, il-mara u t-tfal tiegħu jibbenefikaw għalhekk minn drittijiet derivati ta’ residenza, ta’ xogħol u oħrajn?
Question 3 c) Fl-affermattiv, huma jgawdu minn dawn id-drittijiet bis-saħħa ta’ l-Artikoli 11 u 12 tar-Regolament (KEE) Nru 1612/68 jew bis-saħħa ta’ xi dispożizzjoni oħra tad-dritt Komunitarju (u, jekk iva, bis-saħħa ta’ liema dispożizzjoni)?
(a) On the facts of Mr Baumbast's case, does he, as an EU citizen, enjoy a directly effective right of residence in another EU Member State pursuant to Article 18 (ex Article 8a) of the Treaty of Rome in circumstances where he no longer enjoys rights of residence as a worker under Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the Treaty of Rome, and does not qualify for residence in the host State under any other provision of EU law? 4) a)	Safejn għad-domanda preċedenti tingħata risposta li ma tkunx favorevoli għaċ-ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, il-membri tal-familja tiegħu jibqgħu jgawdu d-drittijiet derivati li huma jkunu oriġinarjament kisbu bħala membri tal-familja meta stabbilixew ruħhom fir-Renju Unit flimkien ma’ ħaddiem?
(b) If so, are his wife and children consequently able to enjoy derivative residence, employment and other rights? b) Fl-affermattiv, liema huma l-kundizzjonijiet applikabbli?”
(c) If so, do they do so on the basis of Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 or some other (and if so, which) provision of EU law? Fuq l-ammissibbiltà ta’ l-ewwel żewġ domandi preliminari Question 4 29. Preliminarjament, għandu jiġi kkonstatat li mill-osservazzjonijiet sottomessi lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jirriżulta li, bejn meta nbdiet il-proċedura fil-kawża prinċipali u r-rinviju għal deċiżjoni preliminari, kemm is-Sinjura Baumbast u ż-żewġt itfal tagħha u kemm R kisbu awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ residenza għal żmien indefinit fir-Renju Unit. Fil-każ ta’ R, l-għoti ta’ dan il-permess huwa probabbilment dovut għall-fatt li żżewġet ċittadin Ingliż, minkejja li l-qorti tar-rinviju ma tat ebda indikazzjoni f’dan ir-rigward. Dan ifisser li s-Sur Baumbast biss ma kisibx awtorizzazzjoni ta’ residenza għal żmien indefinit. (a) Assuming that the preceding question is answered in the EU citizen's disfavour, do that person's family members retain the derivative rights that they, as such members, originally acquired upon being installed in the UK with a worker? 30. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi għandu jiġi eżaminat jekk l-ewwel żewġ domandi preliminari magħmula mill-qorti tar-rinviju humiex ammissibbli.
(b) If so, what are the conditions that apply?' 31. Il-proċedura prevista fl-Artikolu 234 KE hija strument ta’ kooperazzjoni bejn il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja u l-qrati nazzjonali li permezz tagħhom ta’ l-ewwel tagħti lil tat-tieni l-elementi ta’ interpretazzjoni tad-dritt Komunitarju li huma jkollhom bżonn sabiex jaqtgħu l-kawżi li jkollhom quddiemhom (ara s-sentenza tat-8 ta’ Novembru 1990, Gmurzynska-Bscher, C-231/89, Ġabra p. I-4003, punt 18). Admissibility of the first two questions 32. Minn dan jirriżulta li huma biss il-qrati nazzjonali, li quddiemhom tkun tressqet il-kawża u li jkollhom jassumu r-responsabbiltà għall-eventwali deċiżjoni ġudizzjarja, li għandhom jevalwaw, fid-dawl tad-dettalji partikolari ta’ kull kawża, kemm il-bżonn ta’ deċiżjoni preliminari sabiex ikunu jistgħu jagħtu d-deċiżjoni tagħhom u kif ukoll ir-rilevanza tad-domandi li huma jagħmlu lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja. Għaldaqstant, meta d-domandi magħmula mill-qrati nazzjonali jikkonċernaw l-interpretazzjoni ta’ dispożizzjoni tad-dritt Komunitarju, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja hija marbuta, bħala regola ġenerali, li tagħti deċiżjoni (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza Gmurzynska-Bscher, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punti 19 u 20).
29 As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, according to the observations submitted to the Court, between the commencement of the main proceedings and the reference for a preliminary ruling both Mrs Baumbast and her two children and R have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In the case of R, that leave was granted probably because of her marriage to a United Kingdom national, although no details in that regard have been provided by the national tribunal. Consequently, only Mr Baumbast has been denied indefinite leave to remain. 33. Għalhekk, fil-kuntest tad-diviżjoni tal-funzjonijiet ġudizzjarji bejn il-qrati nazzjonali u l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, prevista fl-Artikolu 234 KE, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, bħala regola ġenerali, għandha tagħti deċiżjoni preliminari mingħajr ma tinvestiga ċ-ċirkustanzi li fihom il-qrati nazzjonali ddeċidew li jagħmlulha d-domandi u li fihom għandhom japplikaw id-dispożizzjoni tad-dritt Komunitarju li jkunu talbuha tinterpreta (ara s-sentenza Gmurzynska-Bscher, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 22).
30 In those circumstances, it is necessary to determine whether the first two questions referred by the national tribunal for a preliminary ruling are admissible. 34. Dan jgħodd ħlief fil-każijiet fejn ikun jidher li l-proċedura ta’ l-Artikolu 234 KE tkun qiegħda tintuża għal skop ieħor minn dak li għalih kienet intiża u tkun qiegħda tintuża, fir-realtà, sabiex il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tagħti deċiżjoni fin-nuqqas ta’ kwistjoni reali jew fejn ikun jidher b’mod evidenti li d-dispożizzjoni tad-dritt Komunitarju li tagħha tkun intalbet l-interpretazzjoni tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ma tkunx tapplika, la direttament u lanqas indirettament, għaċ-ċirkustanzi tal-kawża (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi Gmurzynska-Bscher, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 23, u tas-17 ta’ Lulju 1997, Giloy, C-130/95, Ġabra p. I-4291, punt 22).
31 The procedure provided for in Article 234 EC is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate (see Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraph 18). 35. Huma minnu li awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ residenza għal żmien indefinit fir-Renju Unit ingħataw lis-Sinjura Baumbast u lit-tfal tagħha fit-23 ta’ Ġunju 1998, jiġifieri saħansitra qabel id-deċiżjoni tal-qorti tar-rinviju tat-28 ta’ Mejju 1999, u lil R f’data ulterjuri li ma ġietx speċifikata. 32 It follows that it is for the national courts alone which are seised of the case and are responsible for the judgment to be delivered to determine, in view of the special features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to give their judgment and the relevance of the questions which they put to the Court. Consequently, where the questions put by national courts concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Gmurzynska-Bscher, paragraphs 19 and 20). 36. Madankollu, mill-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati fis-seduta jirriżulta li dawn l-awtorizzazzjonijiet ingħataw skond id-dritt Ingliż u li l-kwistjoni tad-drittijiet mogħtija lill-persuni kkonċernati mid-dritt Komunitarju tħalliet bla risposta. 33 Thus in the division of functions in the administration of justice between national courts and the Court of Justice provided for by Article 234 EC the Court of Justice gives preliminary rulings without, in principle, having to examine the circumstances in which the national courts have been led to refer questions and propose to apply the provision of Community law which they have asked the Court to interpret (see Gmurzynska-Bscher, paragraph 22). 37. Għandu jiġi kkonstatat ukoll li dawn id-domandi tqajmu fil-kuntest ta’ kawżi reali u li l-qorti tar-rinviju tat lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja spjegazzjoni tal-kuntest fattwali u legali tagħhom, kif ukoll tar-raġunijiet li wassluha sabiex tikkunsidra li risposta għal dawn id-domandi kienet meħtieġa sabiex tagħti d-deċiżjoni tagħha. 34 It would be otherwise only in cases where either it appears that the procedure of Article 234 EC has been misused and been resorted to, in fact, in order to elicit a ruling from the Court in the absence of a real dispute or it is obvious that the provisions of Community law submitted for the interpretation of the Court cannot apply, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case (see, to that effect, Gmurzynska-Bscher, paragraph 23, and Case C-130/95 Giloy [1997] ECR I-4291, paragraph 22). 38. Minn dak li ntqal iktar ’il fuq jirriżulta li l-ewwel żewġ domandi magħmula mill-qorti tar-rinviju huma ammissibbli. 35 Admittedly, indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom was granted to Mrs Baumbast and her children on 23 June 1998, that is, before even the national tribunal's decision of 28 May 1999, and to R at a later, unspecified date. Fuq l-ewwel domanda 36 However, it is apparent from the observations submitted at the hearing that that leave was granted under English law and that the question of the rights conferred under Community law on the persons concerned has not been resolved definitively. 39. Bl-ewwel domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju qiegħda essenzjalment tistaqsi jekk it-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li jkunu stabbilixew ruħhom fi Stat Membru filwaqt li l-ġenitur tagħhom kien jeżerċita drittijiet ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant f’dan l-Istat Membru għandhomx id-dritt li jgħixu hemmhekk sabiex isegwu, fl-istess Stat, korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali, in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, inkluż meta fil-frattemp il-ġenituri jkunu ddivorzjaw, meta wieħed biss mill-ġenituri jkun ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni u meta dan il-ġenitur ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti jew meta t-tfal ma jkunux huma stess ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni. 37 Equally, these questions were raised in the context of a real dispute and the national tribunal has provided the Court with a statement of their factual and legal context as well as of the reasons which led it to take the view that an answer to those questions was necessary for it to make its decision. L-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 38 It follows from the foregoing that the first two questions raised by the national tribunal are admissible. 40. Minkejja li jaċċettaw li d-dritt ta’ residenza u d-dritt ta’ aċċess għas-sistema edukattiva ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti previsti fl-Artikoli 10 u 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/69 mhumiex drittijiet mingħajr limiti, R u l-familja Baumbast isostnu li l-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti sabiex igawdu mid-drittijiet li joħorġu mill-Artikolu 12 ta’ dan ir-regolament huma ssodisfati fil-kawżi prinċipali. Fil-fatt, fil-kawża R, m’hemm xejn li jagħti l-impressjoni li t-tfal ma baqgħux jagħmlu parti mill-familja ta’ missierhom, li baqa’ jaħdem fl-Istat Membru ospitanti. Fil-kawża Baumbast, l-uniku fatt li jista’ jwassal lil dak li jkun biex jikkunsidra li t-tfal ma baqgħux jissodisfaw il-kundizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 12 ta’ dan ir-regolament huwa li missierhom m’għadux jaħdem f’dan l-Istat. Madankollu, skond is-sentenza tal-15 ta’ Marzu 1989, Echternach u Moritz (389/87 u 390/87, Ġabra p. 723), dan il-fatt m’għandu ebda impatt fuq iż-żamma tad-drittijiet tagħhom.
The first question 41. Il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u l-Gvern Ġermaniż isostnu wkoll li d-drittijiet li t-tfal ta’ ħaddiem migrant igawdu taħt l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 jibqgħu, bħala regola ġenerali, validi anki meta l-ġenituri jitilqu mill-Istat Membru ospitanti. 39 By its first question, the national tribunal seeks essentially to ascertain whether children of a citizen of the European Union who have installed themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. Further, it queries whether those rights are affected by the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced, that only one parent is a citizen of the Union and that parent has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State or that the children are not themselves citizens of the Union. 42. Madankollu, il-Gvern Ġermaniż isostni li, skond is-sentenza Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, huwa biss fil-każ li l-edukazzjoni ma tkunx tista’ titkompla fl-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini li l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 jirrikonoxxi dritt ta’ residenza lit-tfal stess.
Observations submitted to the Court 43. Fir-rigward, b’mod partikolari, tal-kawża R, il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit isostni li t-tfal ta’ R jibbenefikaw minn drittijiet ta’ residenza fir-Renju Unit taħt l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 minħabba li, minkejja li R u missierhom huma divorzjati, dan ta’ l-aħħar għadu jeżerċita drittijiet bħala ħaddiem migrant fir-Renju Unit. 40 Even though they accept that the right of residence and the right to be admitted to the educational system of the host Member State under Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 are not absolute, R and the Baumbast family submit that the conditions laid down for the enjoyment of the rights under Article 12 of that regulation are satisfied in the main proceedings. In fact, in the R case, there are no grounds for suggesting that the children ceased to be members of the family of their father, who continues to work in the host Member State. In the Baumbast case, the only basis for considering that the children ceased to qualify under Article 12 of that regulation is that their father no longer works in that State. However, in accordance with Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach and Moritz [1989] ECR 723, that fact is irrelevant to the continued existence of their rights. 44. Fir-rigward tal-kawża R, il-Kummissjoni ssostni li, minkejja li l-ġenituri huma divorzjati, sakemm wieħed minnhom iżomm l-istatus ta’ ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, it-tfal jibqgħu jgawdu minn dritt ta’ residenza taħt l-Artikolu 10 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 u minn dritt ta’ aċċess għall-edukazzjoni taħt l-Artikolu 12 ta’ l-istess regolament. 41 The United Kingdom and German Governments also submit that the rights acquired by the child of a migrant worker under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 continue in principle to subsist even where the parents leave the host Member State. 45. Fir-rigward tal-kawża Baumbast, il-Kummissjoni ssostni li, skond is-sentenza Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, it-tifel ta’ ħaddiem migrant iżomm il-kwalità ta’ membru tal-familja ta’ dan il-ħaddiem, fis-sens tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, meta l-familja tat-tifel tmur lura lejn l-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini u meta t-tifel jibqa’ fl-Istat Membru ospitanti sabiex hemmhekk ikompli studji li ma jistax isegwi fl-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini. 42 The German Government argues, however, that, in accordance with Echternach and Moritz, it is only where education cannot be continued in the Member State of origin that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 grants the child an independent right of residence. 46. Skond il-Kummissjoni, minkejja li l-fatti li wasslu għas-sentenza Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, kienu partikolari safejn it-tifel ma kienx f’pożizzjoni li jsegwi l-istudji tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja adottat interpretazzjoni wiesgħa ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68. Is-sitwazzjoni tat-tfal tal-familja Baumbast ftit li xejn tista’ tiġi distinta minn dik li wasslet għas-sentenza msemmija u għalhekk, prima facie , m’hemm ebda raġuni li għandha twassal għal riżultat differenti. Il-Kummissjoni tikkonkludi li, jekk il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ttenni l-interpretazzjoni mogħtija f’dik is-sentenza, it-tfal tal-familja Baumbast ikunu jistgħu jibqgħu jgħixu fir-Renju Unit sabiex hemmhekk jeżerċitaw id-drittijiet iggarantiti mill-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68.
43 As regards, in particular, the R case, the United Kingdom Government claims that R's children enjoy rights to reside in the United Kingdom under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 on the ground that, although R and their father are divorced, he continues to exercise rights as a migrant worker in the United Kingdom. Il-kunsiderazzjonijiet tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 44 As regards the R case, the Commission submits that, even though the parents are divorced, as long as one of them retains the status of a migrant worker in the host State the children continue to enjoy a right of residence under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 and a right of access to education under Article 12 of that regulation. 47. Sabiex tingħata risposta utli għall-ewwel domanda, għandha ssir distinzjoni bejn iż-żewġ sitwazzjonijiet li fir-rigward tagħhom il-qorti tar-rinviju tagħmel id-domanda tagħha.
45 In respect of the Baumbast case, the Commission submits that, according to Echternach and Moritz, the child of a migrant worker retains the status of member of that worker's family for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68 where the child's family returns to the Member State of origin and the child remains in the host Member State in order to continue studies which he could not pursue in the Member State of origin. 48. Preliminarjament, għandu jiġi mfakkar li l-Artikolu 1(1) tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, dwar il-kwalità ta’ ħaddiem migrant, jipprovdi li kull ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru, irrispettivament mill-post fejn huwa residenti, għandu d-dritt li jidħol għal attività bħala persuna impjegata u li jwettaq attività tali fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor. 46 According to the Commission, even though the facts of Echternach and Moritz were particular, in that the child was not able to pursue his studies in the Member State of origin, the Court adopted a broad interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. The situation of the children of the Baumbast family is not so very far removed from that in Echternach and Moritz and there is thus no prima facie reason to reach a different result. The Commission concludes that if the Court maintains the interpretation adopted in that case, the children of the Baumbast family may continue to reside in the United Kingdom in order to exercise their rights under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. 49. Fir-rigward, minn naħa, tal-kawża Baumbast, mill-proċess jirriżulta li din il-kawża hija differenti mill-kawża R safejn is-Sur Baumbast, ċittadin Ġermaniż li eżerċita, fir-Renju Unit u għal diversi snin, kemm attività bħala persuna impjegata kif ukoll bħala persuna li taħdem għal rasha u li għadu residenti hemmhekk, m’għadux jaħdem fir-Renju Unit. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-qorti tar-rinviju tistaqsi jekk it-tfal tiegħu jistgħux ikomplu l-edukazzjoni tagħhom fir-Renju Unit bis-saħħa tad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68.
Findings of the Court 50. F’dan ir-rigward għandu jiġi mfakkar li l-għan tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, jiġifieri l-moviment liberu tal-ħaddiema, jeżiġi, sabiex dan il-moviment liberu jkun assigurat filwaqt li jkunu mħarsa l-libertà u d-dinjità, kundizzjonijiet ottimali ta’ integrazzjoni tal-familja tal-ħaddiem Komunitarju fi ħdan l-Istat Membru ospitanti (ara s-sentenza tat-13 ta’ Novembru 1990, Di Leo, C-303/89, Ġabra p. I-4185, punt 13). 47 In order to give a helpful answer to the first question, a distinction must be drawn between the two situations which form the basis of the national tribunal's question. 51. Kif il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja rrilevat fil-punt 21 tas-sentenza Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, sabiex tali integrazzjoni tkun tista’ timmaterjalizza, huwa indispensabbli li t-tifel tal-ħaddiem Komunitarju jkollu l-possibbiltà li jattendi l-iskola u jkompli l-istudji tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, kif jipprovdi espliċitament l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, sabiex ikun jista’ jispiċċa dawn l-istudji b’suċċess. 48 First of all, it must be recalled that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1612/68, relating to the status of migrant worker, provides that any national of a Member State, irrespective of his place of residence, is to have the right to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such activity, within the territory of another Member State. 52. F’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk li wasslu għall-kawża Baumbast, il-fatt li t-tifel ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni jitwaqqaf milli jkompli l-edukazzjoni tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti billi jiġi mċaħħad minn awtorizzazzjoni ta’ residenza jista’ jkun ta’ natura li jiskoraġġixxi lill-imsemmi ċittadin milli jeżerċita d-drittijiet ta’ moviment liberu previsti fl-Artikolu 39 KE u joħloq għalhekk ostakolu għall-eżerċizzju effettiv tal-libertà ggarantita mit-Trattat KE.
49 As regards, first, the Baumbast case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that this case is different from the R case in that Mr Baumbast, a German national who pursued an activity both as an employed person and as a self-employed person in the United Kingdom for several years and continues to reside there, no longer works in the United Kingdom. Under those circumstances, the national tribunal seeks to ascertain whether his children can continue their education in the United Kingdom under the provisions of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. 53. Għalkemm huwa minnu li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fis-sentenza Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, irrilevat li t-tifel ikkonċernat ma setax, wara li missieru mar lura fl-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini tiegħu, ikompli l-istudji tiegħu hemmhekk minħabba nuqqas ta’ koordinazzjoni tad-diplomi skolastiċi, xorta waħda jibqa’ l-fatt li r-raġunament tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja kien intiż essenzjalment sabiex jiggarantixxi, in konformità ma’ l-għan ta’ integrazzjoni tal-membri tal-familja tal-ħaddiema migranti mfittex mir-Regolament Nru 1612/68, li t-tifel ta’ wieħed minn dawn il-ħaddiema jkun jista’ jattendi l-iskola u jkompli jistudja fl-Istat Membru ospitanti f’kundizzjonijiet li ma jkunux diskriminatorji, sabiex ikun jista’ jispiċċahom b’suċċess (ara wkoll is-sentenza tas-27 ta’ Settembru 1988, Il-Kummissjoni vs Il-Belġju, 42/87, Ġabra p. 5445, punt 10).
50 In that respect, it must be borne in mind that the aim of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, requires, for such freedom to be guaranteed in compliance with the principles of liberty and dignity, the best possible conditions for the integration of the Community worker's family in the society of the host Member State (see Case C-308/89 Di Leo [1990] ECR I-4185, paragraph 13). 54. Fil-fatt, jekk it-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni li jkunu f’sitwazzjoni bħal dik tat-tfal tas-Sur Baumbast ma jiġux awtorizzati jkomplu l-edukazzjoni tagħhom fl-Istat Membru ospitanti ħlief meta jkun impossibbli għalihom li jagħmlu dan fl-Istat Membru ta’ l-oriġini tagħhom, dan imur kontra mhux biss il-kliem ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, li jipprevedi dritt ta’ aċċess għall-korsijiet edukattivi għat-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru “li hu jew kien impjegat” fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor, iżda jmur kontra wkoll l-iskop tiegħu.
51 As the Court pointed out in paragraph 21 of Echternach and Moritz, for such integration to come about, a child of a Community worker must have the possibility of going to school and pursuing further education in the host Member State, as is expressly provided in Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, in order to be able to complete that education successfully. 55. Għaldaqstant, l-interpretazzjoni ristretta ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni proposta mill-Gvern Ġermaniż ma tistax tintlaqa’. 52 In circumstances such as those in the Baumbast case, to prevent a child of a citizen of the Union from continuing his education in the host Member State by refusing him permission to remain might dissuade that citizen from exercising the rights to freedom of movement laid down in Article 39 EC and would therefore create an obstacle to the effective exercise of the freedom thus guaranteed by the EC Treaty. 56. Fir-rigward tal-kwistjoni ta’ jekk il-fatt li t-tfal ma jkunux huma stess ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni jistax ikollu effett fuq ir-risposta li għandha tingħata għall-ewwel domanda, huwa biżżejjed li jiġi mfakkar li, skond l-Artikolu 10 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, id-dixxendenti tal-ħaddiem Komunitarju li jkollhom inqas minn wieħed u għoxrin sena jew li jkunu dipendenti, irrispettivament min-nazzjonalità tagħhom, għandhom jiġu kkunsidrati bħala membri tal-familja tiegħu u għandhom id-dritt li jistabbilixxu ruħhom ma’ dan il-ħaddiem u li, għalhekk, għandhom id-dritt li jkunu aċċettati fis-sistema skolastika in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 ta’ dan ir-regolament. 53 Although the Court found in Echternach and Moritz that the child concerned could not, after his father's return to his Member State of origin, continue his studies there because there is no coordination of school diplomas, it is none the less the case that the Court's reasoning sought essentially to ensure, in accordance with the aim of integration of members of the families of migrant workers pursued by Regulation No 1612/68, that a child of one of those workers could go to school and pursue further education in the host Member State, under conditions which do not constitute discrimination, in order to be able to complete that education successfully (see, also, Case 42/87 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 5445, paragraph 10). 57. Barra minn hekk, id-dritt li jistabbilixxu ruħhom mal-ħaddiem migrant li jgawdu “il-mara [il-konjuġi] tiegħu u d-dixxendenti tagħhom li huma taħt l-età ta’ 21 sena jew huma dipendenti” għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li japplika kemm għad-dixxendenti ta’ dan il-ħaddiem u kif ukoll għal dawk tal-konjuġi tiegħu. Fil-fatt, jekk din id-dispożizzjoni tingħata interpretazzjoni restrittiva fis-sens li huma biss it-tfal komuni tal-ħaddiem migrant u tal-konjuġi tiegħu li għandhom id-dritt jistabbilixxu ruħhom magħhom, dan imur kontra l-għan tar-Regolament Nru 1612/69 imfakkar iktar ’il fuq. 54 In fact, to permit children of a citizen of the Union who are in a situation such as that of Mr Baumbast's children to continue their education in the host Member State only where they cannot do so in their Member State of origin would offend not only the letter of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, which provides a right of access to educational courses for the children of a national of a Member State `who is or has been employed' in the territory of another Member State, but also its spirit. 58. Fir-rigward, min-naħa l-oħra, tal-kawża R, it-tfal ikkonċernati jgawdu, bħala membri tal-familja ta’ ħaddiem ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru impjegat fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor, minn dritt ta’ residenza u minn dritt li jistudjaw taħt l-Artikoli 10 u 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68.
55 Consequently, the restrictive interpretation of that provision proposed by the German Government cannot be accepted. 59. Fil-fatt, kif jirriżulta mill-punt 50 ta’ din is-sentenza, dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet huma intiżi sabiex jiffaċilitaw l-integrazzjoni tal-ħaddiem migrant u tal-familja tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, jiġifieri l-moviment liberu tal-ħaddiema, filwaqt li jitħarsu l-libertà u d-dinjità.
56 As to whether the fact that the children are not themselves citizens of the Union can affect the answer to the first question, suffice it to state that, under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, the descendants of a Community worker who are under the age of 21 or are dependants, irrespective of their nationality, are to be regarded as members of his family and have the right to install themselves with that worker and that, accordingly, they have the right to be admitted to the school system in accordance with Article 12 of that regulation. 60. Issa, minkejja li fil-frattemp R u l-ewwel raġel tagħha ddivorzjaw, mill-proċess jirriżulta li dan għadu jeżerċita attività bħala impjegat fir-Renju Unit u għalhekk igawdu mill-kwalità ta’ ħaddiem ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru impjegat fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor fis-sens ta’ l-Artikoli 1 u 10 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68.
57 Furthermore, the right of `his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants' to install themselves with the migrant worker must be interpreted as meaning that it is granted both to the descendants of that worker and to those of his spouse. To give a restrictive interpretation to that provision to the effect that only the children common to the migrant worker and his spouse have the right to install themselves with them would run counter to the aim of Regulation No 1612/68 noted above. 61. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, mid-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, u b’mod partikolari mill-Artikoli 10 u 12 tiegħu, jirriżulta b’mod ċar li t-tfal ta’ l-ewwel raġel ta’ R għadhom jibbenefikaw minn dritt ta’ residenza fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, kif ukoll mid-dritt li jistudjaw hemmhekk fl-istess kundizzjonijiet bħaċ-ċittadini ta’ dan l-Istat Membru. 58 As regards, second, the R case, the children concerned enjoy, as members of the family of a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State, a right of residence and a right to pursue their education under Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. 62. Il-fatt li t-tfal ta’ l-ewwel raġel ta’ R ma jgħixux miegħu b’mod permanenti ma jaffettwax id-drittijiet li huma jgawdu taħt l-Artikoli 10 u 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68. L-Artikolu 10 ta’ dan ir-regolament, meta jipprevedi li l-membru tal-familja tal-ħaddiem migrant għandu d-dritt li jistabbilixxi ruħu mal-ħaddiem, ma jeżiġix li l-membru tal-familja kkonċernat jgħix miegħu b’mod permanenti, iżda, kif jindika l-Artikolu 10(3) ta’ dan ir-regolament, jeżiġi biss li l-ħaddiem ikollu dar għall-abitazzjoni li tista’ titqies bħala normali sabiex tilqa’ l-familja tiegħu (ara s-sentenza tat-13 ta’ Frar 1985, Diatta, 267/83, Ġabra p. 567, punt 18).
59 As is apparent from paragraph 50 above, those provisions seek to facilitate the integration of the migrant worker and his family in the host Member State in order to attain the objective of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, in compliance with the principles of liberty and dignity. 63. Fid-dawl ta’ dak li ntqal iktar ’il fuq, ir-risposta għall-ewwel domanda għandha tkun li t-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li jkunu stabbilixew ruħhom fi Stat Membru filwaqt li l-ġenitur tagħhom kien jeżerċita drittijiet ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant f’dan l-Istat Membru għandhom id-dritt li jgħixu hemmhekk sabiex isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali, in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68. Il-fatt li fil-frattemp il-ġenituri ta’ dawn it-tfal ikunu ddivorzjaw, il-fatt li wieħed biss mill-ġenituri jkun ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni u li dan il-ġenitur ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti jew il-fatt li l-tfal mhumiex huma stess ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni m’għandhom ebda rilevanza f’dan ir-rigward.
60 Even though R and her first husband have meanwhile divorced, it is apparent from the file that he continues to pursue an activity as an employed person in the United Kingdom and therefore enjoys the status of a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State for the purposes of Articles 1 and 10 of Regulation No 1612/68. Fuq it-tieni domanda 61 Under those circumstances, it follows clearly from the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68, in particular Articles 10 and 12 thereof, that the children of R's first husband continue to enjoy a right to reside in the host Member State as well as the right to pursue their education there under the same conditions as the nationals of that State. 64. Permezz tat-tieni domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju qiegħda essenzjalment tistaqsi jekk, meta t-tfal jibbenefikaw minn dritt ta’ residenza fi Stat Membru ospitanti sabiex hemmhekk isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, din id-dispożizzjoni għandhiex tiġi interpretata fis-sens li tippermetti lill-ġenitur li effettivament huwa responsabbli għall-kura ta’ dawn it-tfal, irrispettivament min-nazzjonalità tiegħu, sabiex jgħix magħhom b’tali mod li jiġi ffaċilitat l-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt minkejja l-fatt li l-ġenituri fil-frattemp ikunu ddivorzjaw jew minkejja l-fatt li l-ġenitur li għandu l-kwalità ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropa ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti.
62 The fact that the children of R's first husband do not live permanently with him does not affect the rights which they derive from Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. In providing that a member of a migrant worker's family has the right to install himself with the worker, Article 10 of that regulation does not require that the member of the family in question must live permanently with the worker, but, as is clear from Article 10(3), only that the accommodation which the worker has available must be such as may be considered normal for the purpose of accommodating his family (see Case 267/83 Diatta [1985] ECR 567, paragraph 18). L-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 63 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that children of a citizen of the European Union who have installed themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. The fact that the parents of the children concerned have meanwhile divorced, the fact that only one parent is a citizen of the Union and that parent has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State and the fact that the children are not themselves citizens of the Union are irrelevant in this regard. 65. Skond R u l-familja Baumbast, id-dispożizzjonijiet Komunitarji għandhom jiġu interpretati b’mod wiesa’ sabiex id-drittijiet mogħtija minnhom ikunu effettivi, b’mod partikolari meta jkun involut dritt daqstant fundamentali bħalma huwa d-dritt għall-ħajja tal-familja. Huma jikkunsidraw għalhekk li, fir-rigward ta’ tfal minuri li jkunu għaddew ħajjithom kollha ma’ ommhom u jkunu għadhom jgħixu magħha, ir-rifjut li l-omm tingħata dritt ta’ residenza għall-perijodu ta’ l-edukazzjoni tat-tfal jikkostitwixxi ostakolu għad-drittijiet tagħhom, li jrendi inutli l-eżerċizzju tagħhom. Huma jsostnu wkoll li tali rifjut jirrappreżenta ostakolu sproporzjonat għall-ħajja tal-familja li jmur kontra l-Artikolu 8 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea għall-Protezzjoni tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u tal-Libertajiet Fundamentali (iktar ’il quddiem il-“KEDB”).
The second question 66. Il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u l-Gvern Ġermaniż, kif ukoll il-Kummissjoni, jipproponu lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja sabiex twieġeb fin-negattiv għat-tieni domanda. Huma jsostnu li mill-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 ma jistax jiġi dedott dritt ta’ residenza favur ġenituri ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz. Id-drittijiet tagħhom għandhom jiġu ddeterminati mill-kundizzjonijiet li jirregolaw direttament l-eżerċizzju tal-moviment liberu. Wara divorzju jew wara li tintemm l-attività tal-konjuġi ċittadin Komunitarju bħala ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, id-dritt Komunitarju ma jagħtix lill-konjuġi ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz dritt ta’ residenza li joħroġ mid-dritt għall-edukazzjoni tat-tfal.
64 By its second question, the national tribunal seeks essentially to ascertain whether, where children have the right to reside in a host Member State in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, that provision must be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State. 67. Skond il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit, fil-każ fejn l-Istat Membru ospitanti jkun obbligat jawtorizza lit-tfal sabiex jgħixu hemmhekk bil-għan li jsegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali fis-sens ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, l-obbligu tiegħu li jinkoraġġixxi l-isforzi li jippermettu lil dawn it-tfal isegwu dawn il-korsijiet fl-aħjar kundizzjonijiet m’għandux jiġi interpretat fis-sens li huwa jkun obbligat jawtorizza l-persuna responsabbli għall-kura tagħhom sabiex tgħix magħhom. Dan il-gvern jindika li, jekk u safejn ikun stabbilit li r-rifjut ta’ tali dritt ta’ residenza jaffettwa b’mod mhux ġustifikat il-ħajja tal-familja, kif protetta mill-Artikolu 8 tal-KEDB, il-Home Office (Ministeru ta’ l-Intern) jista’ jagħti dritt ta’ residenza eċċezzjonali lill-ġenitur li jkun responsabbli għall-kura tat-tifel, b’deroga mill-Immigration Rules. Observations submitted to the Court Il-kunsiderazzjonijiet tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 65 According to R and the Baumbast family, the provisions of Community law must be interpreted broadly so that the rights granted are effective, particularly where a right as fundamental as the right to family life is concerned. They thus submit that, in the case of minor children who have spent all their life living with their mother and continue to do so, the refusal to afford her a right of residence during the continuation of the children's education is an interference with their rights which impairs the exercise of those rights. They also submit that such a refusal is a disproportionate interference with family life, contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (`the European Convention'). 68. Għandu jiġi rrilevat, l-ewwel nett, li l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, kif ukoll id-drittijiet li joħorġu minnu, għandu jiġi interpretat fid-dawl tal-istruttura u ta’ l-iskop ta’ dan ir-regolament. Issa, mid-dispożizzjonijiet kollha tiegħu jirriżulta li, sabiex jiġi ffaċilitat il-moviment tal-membri tal-familja tal-ħaddiema, il-Kunsill ħa in kunsiderazzjoni, minn naħa, l-importanza li għandu mill-aspett uman, għall-ħaddiem, il-fatt li jkollu miegħu l-familja tiegħu u, min-naħa l-oħra, l-importanza li għandha, minn kull aspett, l-integrazzjoni tal-ħaddiem u tal-familja tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, mingħajr ebda distinzjoni fit-trattament meta mqabbla maċ-ċittadini nazzjonali (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tat-18 ta’ Mejju 1989, Il-Kummissjoni vs Il-Ġermanja, 249/86, p. 1263, punt 11).
66 The United Kingdom and German Governments as well as the Commission propose that the Court answer the second question in the negative. They submit that it is not possible to deduce from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 a right of residence in favour of parents who are nationals of a non-member country. Their rights are determined by the criteria which directly govern the exercise of freedom of movement. Following divorce or termination by the spouse who is a Community national of his activity as a migrant worker in the host Member State, Community law does not confer on the spouse who is a national of a non-member country a right of residence derived from the children's right to be educated. 69. Kif jirriżulta mir-risposta għall-ewwel domanda, l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 huwa intiż b’mod partikolari sabiex jiġi assigurat li t-tfal ta’ ħaddiem Komunitarju jkunu jistgħu, anki jekk dan ma jkunx għadu jeżerċita attività bħala impjegat fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, isegwu u, jekk ikun il-każ, itemmu, l-edukazzjoni tagħhom f’dan l-Istat Membru.
67 According to the United Kingdom Government, in circumstances where the host Member State is obliged to allow children to reside there in order to attend general educational courses under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, its duty to encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend those courses under the best possible conditions is not to be interpreted as requiring that State to allow the person who is their carer to reside with them. The United Kingdom Government states that if and in so far as it is established that refusal of such a right of residence would unjustifiably interfere with family life as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention, the Home Office may grant exceptional leave to remain to the carer parent in derogation from the Immigration Rules. 70. Għandu jiġi rrilevat, it-tieni nett, li mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jirriżulta li, l-istess bħall-kwalità ta’ ħaddiem migrant stess, id-drittijiet li jibbenefikaw minnhom il-membri tal-familja ta’ ħaddiem Komunitarju bis-saħħa tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 jistgħu, f’ċerti ċirkustanzi, jibqgħu eżistenti anki wara l-waqfien tar-relazzjoni ta’ impjieg (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi Echternach u Moritz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 21, u tat-12 ta’ Mejju 1998, Martínez Sala, C-85/96, Ġabra p. I-2691, punt 32). Findings of the Court 71. F’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawżi prinċipali, fejn it-tfal igawdu, taħt l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, mid-dritt li jkomplu l-edukazzjoni tagħhom fl-Istat Membru ospitanti filwaqt li l-ġenituri tagħhom li huma responsabbli għall-kura tagħhom jistgħu jitilfu d-drittijiet ta’ residenza tagħhom minħabba, f’kawża minnhom, divorzju minn mal-ħaddiem migrant u, fil-kawża l-oħra, il-fatt li l-ġenitur li kien jeżerċita attivtà bħala impjegat fl-Istat Membru ospitanti bħala ħaddiem migrant m’għadux jaħdem hemmhekk, huwa ċar li jekk dawn il-ġenituri jiġu mċaħħda mill-possibbiltà li jibqgħu f’dan l-Istat Membru ospitanti matul l-edukazzjoni tat-tfal tagħhom, dan jista’ jwassal sabiex dawn it-tfal jiġu mċaħħda minn dritt li l-leġiżlatur Komunitarju jirrikonoxxi fir-rigward tagħhom. 68 First, Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and the rights which flow from it must be interpreted in the context of the structure and purpose of that regulation. It is apparent from the provisions of the regulation, taken as a whole, that in order to facilitate the movement of members of workers' families the Council took into account, first, the importance for the worker, from a human point of view, of having his entire family with him and, secondly, the importance, from all points of view, of the integration of the worker and his family into the host Member State without any difference in treatment in relation to nationals of that State (see, to that effect, Case 249/86 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 1263, paragraph 11). 72. Barra minn hekk, in konformità mal-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, ir-Regolament Nru 1612/68 għandu jiġi interpretat fid-dawl tar-rekwiżit li tiġi rrispettata l-ħajja tal-familja prevista fl-Artikolu 8 tal-KEDB, liema rispett jagħmel parti mid-drittijiet fundamentali li, skond ġurisprudenza kostanti, huma rrikonoxxuti mid-dritt Komunitarju (ara s-sentenza Il-Kummissjoni vs Il‑Ġermanja, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 10). 69 As is clear from the answer to the first question, Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 seeks in particular to ensure that children of a Community worker can, even if he has ceased to pursue the activity of an employed person in the host Member State, undertake and, where appropriate, complete their education in that Member State. 73. Id-dritt rikonoxxut mill-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 fir-rigward tat-tifel ta’ ħaddiem migrant li jsegwi, fl-aħjar kundizzjonijiet, l-edukazzjoni tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti jimplika neċessarjament li dan it-tifel għandu jkollu d-dritt li jkun akkumpanjat mill-persuna li effettivament tkun responsabbli għall-kura tiegħu u, għalhekk, li din il-persuna tkun tista’ tgħix miegħu fl-imsemmi Stat Membru matul l-istudji tiegħu. Jekk l-għoti ta’ awtorizzazzjoni ta’ residenza jiġi rrifjutat lill-ġenitur effettivament responsabbli għall-kura tat-tifel li jkun qed jeżerċita d-dritt tiegħu li jsegwi l-edukazzjoni tiegħu fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, dan ikun ta’ preġudizzju għal dan id-dritt. 70 Second, according to the case-law of the Court, just like the status of migrant worker itself, the rights enjoyed by members of a Community worker's family under Regulation No 1612/68 can, in certain circumstances, continue to exist even after the employment relationship has ended (see, to that effect, Echternach and Moritz, paragraph 21, and Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraph 32). 74. Fir-rigward ta’ l-argument tal-Kummissjoni li dritt ta’ residenza ma jistax joħroġ mill-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68 għall-benefiċċju ta’ persuna li mhux it-tifel ta’ ħaddiem migrant minħabba li l-pussess ta’ din il-kwalità hija l-kundizzjoni sine qua non għal kull dritt taħt din id-dispożizzjoni, għandu jiġi mfakkar li, fid-dawl tal-kuntest u ta’ l-għanijiet tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, u b’mod partikolari ta’ l-Artikolu 12 tiegħu, dan ma jistax jiġi interpretat b’mod restrittiv (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza Diatta, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 17) u m’għandux, fi kwalunkwe każ, jiġi mċaħħad mill-effett utli tiegħu.
71 In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where the children enjoy, under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the right to continue their education in the host Member State although the parents who are their carers are at risk of losing their rights of residence as a result, in one case, of a divorce from the migrant worker and, in the other case, of the fact that the parent who pursued the activity of an employed person in the host Member State as a migrant worker has ceased to work there, it is clear that if those parents were refused the right to remain in the host Member State during the period of their children's education that might deprive those children of a right which is granted to them by the Community legislature. 75. Fid-dawl ta’ dak li ntqal iktar ’il fuq, ir-risposta għat-tieni domanda għandha tkun li, meta t-tfal jibbenefikaw minn dritt ta’ residenza fi Stat Membru ospitanti sabiex hemmhekk isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, din id-dispożizzjoni għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li tippermetti lill-ġenitur li effettivament huwa responsabbli għall-kura ta’ dawn it-tfal, irrispettivament min-nazzjonalità tiegħu, sabiex jgħix magħhom b’tali mod li jiġi ffaċilitat l-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt minkejja l-fatt li l-ġenituri fil-frattemp ikunu ddivorzjaw jew minkejja l-fatt li l-ġenitur li għandu l-kwalità ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropa ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti.
72 Moreover, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted in the light of the requirement of respect for family life laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention. That requirement is one of the fundamental rights which, according to settled case-law, are recognised by Community law (see Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 10). Fuq it-tielet domanda 73 The right conferred by Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 on the child of a migrant worker to pursue, under the best possible conditions, his education in the host Member State necessarily implies that that child has the right to be accompanied by the person who is his primary carer and, accordingly, that that person is able to reside with him in that Member State during his studies. To refuse to grant permission to remain to a parent who is the primary carer of the child exercising his right to pursue his studies in the host Member State infringes that right. 76. Permezz ta’ l-ewwel parti tat-tielet domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju qiegħda essenzjalment tistaqsi jekk ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li m’għadux jibbenefika fl-Istat Membru ospitanti minn dritt ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant jistax, fil-kwalità tiegħu bħala ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, jibbenefika f’dak l-Istat minn dritt ta’ residenza b’applikazzjoni diretta ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE. 74 As to the Commission's argument to the effect that a right of residence cannot be derived from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 in favour of a person who is not the child of a migrant worker, on the ground that possession of that status is a sine qua non of any right under that provision, having regard to its context and the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1612/68 and in particular Article 12 thereof, that provision cannot be interpreted restrictively (see, to that effect, Diatta, paragraph 17) and must not, under any circumstances, be rendered ineffective. L-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 75 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question must be that where children have the right to reside in a host Member State in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, that provision must be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State. 77. Skond is-Sur Baumbast, il-fatt li d-dritt li jgħix b’mod liberu fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri previst mill-Artikolu 18 KE huwa marbut b’limitazzjonijiet u huwa stabbilit fit-Trattat KE ma jċaħħdux minn effett dirett. Din id-dispożizzjoni għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li timplika li s-Sur Baumbast jibqa’ jeżerċita dritt ta’ residenza fir-Renju Unit filwaqt li jaħdem barra mill-Unjoni Ewropea. Din l-applikazzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 18 KE tippermetti l-eżerċizzju tad-dritt ta’ moviment liberu stabbilit fit-Trattat KE fuq sempliċi prova tan-nazzjonalità filwaqt li tibqa’, madankollu, konsistenti mal-leġiżlazzjoni li diġà teżisti f’dan ir-rigward.
The third question 78. Il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u l-Gvern Ġermaniż isostnu li mill-Artikolu 18(1) KE ma jistax jinħareġ direttament dritt ta’ residenza. Il-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet imsemmija f’dan l-artikolu juru li mhuwiex maħsub bħala dispożizzjoni awtonoma. 76 By the first part of its third question, the national tribunal seeks essentially to ascertain whether a citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the European Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. 79. Filwaqt li tinsisti fuq l-importanza politika u ġuridika ta’ l-Artikolu 18 KE, il-Kummissjoni ssostni li l-formulazzjoni ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, u b’mod partikolari ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE, turi l-limiti tiegħu. Fl-istat attwali tad-dritt Komunitarju, id-dritt ta’ moviment u ta’ residenza stabbilit f’dan l-artikolu huwa suġġett għar-regoli li diġà jeżistu, kemm primarji u kemm derivati, li jiddefinixxu l-kategoriji ta’ persuni eliġibbli sabiex jibbenefikaw minnu. Dawn id-drittijiet għadhom marbuta jew ma’ attività ekonomika jew ma’ l-eżistenza ta’ riżorsi suffiċjenti. Peress li t-tielet domanda preliminari hija bbażata fuq il-premessa li s-Sur Baumbast m’għandu ebda dispożizzjoni oħra tad-dritt Komunitarju li fuqha jista’ jinvoka d-dritt ta’ residenza tiegħu fir-Renju Unit, il-Kummissjoni tikkonkludi li l-Artikolu 18 KE ma jistax, fl-istat attwali tad-dritt u f’tali ċirkustanzi, ikun ta’ xi utilità għalih.
Observations submitted to the Court Il-kunsiderazzjonijiet tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 77 According to Mr Baumbast, the fact that the right to reside freely within the territory of the Member States under Article 18 EC is subject to restrictions and is laid down in the EC Treaty does not deprive the right of direct effect. That provision should be interpreted to mean that Mr Baumbast continues to exercise a right of residence in the United Kingdom while he is working outside the European Union. Such an application of Article 18 EC would enable the right of freedom of movement laid down in the EC Treaty to be exercised simply on proof of nationality, but is consistent with pre-existing legislation on the subject. 80. Skond ġurisprudenza stabbilita, id-dritt taċ-ċittadini ta’ Stat Membru li jidħlu fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor u li jgħixu hemmhekk jikkostitwixxi dritt mogħti direttament mit-Trattat KE jew, skond il-każ, mid-dispożizzjonijiet meħuda għat-twettiq tiegħu (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza tat-8 ta’ April 1976, Royer, 48/75, Ġabra p. 497, punt 31).
78 The United Kingdom and German Governments argue that a right of residence cannot be derived directly from Article 18(1) EC. The limitations and conditions referred to in that paragraph show that it is not intended to be a free-standing provision. 81. Għalkemm huwa minnu li, qabel id-dħul fis-seħħ tat-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja kienet speċifikat li dan id-dritt ta’ residenza, mogħti direttament mit-Trattat KE, kien suġġett għall-kundizzjoni ta’ l-eżerċizzju ta’ attività ekonomika fis-sens ta’ l-Artikoli 48, 52 u 59 tat-Trattat KE (li saru, wara emenda, l-Artikoli 39 KE, 43 KE u 49 KE) (ara s-sentenza tal-5 ta’ Frar 1991, Roux, C-363/89, Ġabra p. I-273, punt 9), xorta waħda jibqa’ l-fatt li, minn dak iż-żmien, l-istatus ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni ġie introdott fit-Trattat KE u għal kull ċittadin ġie rrikonoxxut dritt li jmur minn post għal ieħor u li joqgħod liberament fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri permezz ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE.
79 Whilst underlining the political and legal importance of Article 18 EC, the Commission submits that the very wording of that provision, and in particular its first paragraph, shows its limitations. As Community law stands at present, the right to move and reside established by that article is conditioned by the pre-existing rules, both primary and secondary, which define the categories of persons eligible for it. Those rights are still linked either to an economic activity or to sufficient resources. Since the point of departure for the third question is that Mr Baumbast has no other Community law foundation for his right to reside in the United Kingdom, the Commission concludes that Article 18 EC cannot, as the law stands at present and in such circumstances, be of any use to him. 82. Skond l-Artikolu 17(1) KE, kull persuna li għandha ċ-ċittadinanza ta’ Stat Membru hija ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni. L-istatus ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni huwa maħsub sabiex ikun l-istatus fundamentali taċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Istati Membri (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza ta’ l-20 ta’ Settembru 2001, Grzelcyzk, C-184/99, Ġabra p. I-6193, punt 31).
Findings of the Court 83. Barra minn hekk, it-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea ma jeżiġix li ċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni jeżerċitaw attività professjonali, bħala impjegati jew bħala persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom, sabiex igawdu mid-drittijiet previsti fit-tieni parti tat-Trattat KE, dwar iċ-ċittadinanza ta’ l-Unjoni. Barra minn hekk, m’hemm xejn fit-test ta’ dan it-trattat li jippermetti li jiġi kkunsidrat li ċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni li jkunu stabbilixew ruħhom fi Stat Membru ieħor sabiex hemmhekk jeżerċitaw attività bħala impjegati huma mċaħħda mid-drittijiet mogħtija lilhom mit-Trattat KE minħabba din iċ-ċittadinanza meta tintemm din l-attività. 80 According to settled case-law, the right of nationals of one Member State to enter the territory of another Member State and to reside there constitutes a right conferred directly by the EC Treaty or, depending on the case, by the provisions adopted to implement it (see, inter alia, Case 48/75 Royer [1976] ECR 497, paragraph 31). 84. Fir-rigward, b’mod partikolari, tad-dritt ta’ residenza fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri previst fl-Artikolu 18(1) KE, għandu jiġi kkonstatat li dan huwa rrikonoxxut direttament lil kull ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni minn dispożizzjoni ċara u preċiża tat-Trattat KE. Abbażi biss tal-kwalità tiegħu ta’ ċittadin ta’ Stat Membru, u għalhekk ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, is-Sur Baumbast għandu d-dritt jinvoka l-Artikolu 18(1) KE.
81 Although, before the Treaty on European Union entered into force, the Court had held that that right of residence, conferred directly by the EC Treaty, was subject to the condition that the person concerned was carrying on an economic activity within the meaning of Articles 48, 52 or 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) (see Case C-363/89 Roux [1991] ECR I-273, paragraph 9), it is none the less the case that, since then, Union citizenship has been introduced into the EC Treaty and Article 18(1) EC has conferred a right, for every citizen, to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. 85. Huma minnu li dan id-dritt ta’ residenza taċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor huwa rrikonoxxut bla ħsara għal-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet previsti mit-Trattat KE kif ukoll mid-dispożizzjonijiet adottati għat-twettiq tiegħu. 82 Under Article 17(1) EC, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is to be a citizen of the Union. Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paragraph 31). 86. Madankollu, l-applikazzjoni tal-limitazzjonijiet u tal-kundizzjonijiet aċċettati fl-Artikolu 18(1) KE fir-rigward ta’ l-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt ta’ residenza hija suġġetta għal stħarriġ ġudizzjarju. Għaldaqstant, l-eventwali limitazzjonijiet u kundizzjonijiet għal dan id-dritt ma jipprekludux lid-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE milli jagħtu drittijiet lil individwi li huma jistgħu jinvokaw b’rimedji legali u li l-qrati nazzjonali għandhom jipproteġu (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza ta’ l-4 ta’ Diċembru 1974, Van Duyn, 41/74, Ġabra p. 1337, punt 7).
83 Moreover, the Treaty on European Union does not require that citizens of the Union pursue a professional or trade activity, whether as an employed or self-employed person, in order to enjoy the rights provided in Part Two of the EC Treaty, on citizenship of the Union. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text of that Treaty to permit the conclusion that citizens of the Union who have established themselves in another Member State in order to carry on an activity as an employed person there are deprived, where that activity comes to an end, of the rights which are conferred on them by the EC Treaty by virtue of that citizenship. 87. Fir-rigward tal-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet li joħorġu mid-dispożizzjonijiet tad-dritt derivat, l-Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva 90/364 jipprevedi li l-Istati Membri jistgħu jitolbu li ċ-ċittadini ta’ Stat Membru li jixtiequ jibbenefikaw mid-dritt ta’ residenza fit-territorju tagħhom għandhom ikollhom, għalihom stess u għall-membri tal-familja tagħhom, assigurazzjoni kontra l-mard li tkopri r-riskji kollha fl-Istat Membru ospitanti u riżorsi biżżejjed sabiex jiġi evitat li jsiru piż għas-servizzi soċjali ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti matul il-perijodu ta’ residenza tagħhom. 84 As regards, in particular, the right to reside within the territory of the Member States under Article 18(1) EC, that right is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union by a clear and precise provision of the EC Treaty. Purely as a national of a Member State, and consequently a citizen of the Union, Mr Baumbast therefore has the right to rely on Article 18(1) EC. 88. Fir-rigward ta’ l-applikazzjoni ta’ dawn il-kundizzjonijiet għall-finijiet tal-kawża Baumbast, għandu jiġi rrilevat li mill-proċess jirriżulta li s-Sur Baumbast jeżerċita attività bħala impjegat f’pajjiż terz ma’ impriżi Ġermaniżi u li la hu u lanqas il-familja ma talbu assistenza soċjali fl-Istat Membru ospitanti. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, mhuwiex ikkontestat li s-Sur Baumbast jissodisfa l-kundizzjoni dwar l-eżistenza ta’ riżorsi biżżejjed imposta mid-Direttiva 90/364.
85 Admittedly, that right for citizens of the Union to reside within the territory of another Member State is conferred subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by the EC Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. 89. Fir-rigward tal-kundizzjoni dwar l-assigurazzjoni medika, mill-proċess jirriżulta li kemm is-Sur Baumbast u kemm il-membri tal-familja tiegħu huma koperti b’assigurazzjoni medika sħiħa fil-Ġermanja. Jidher li l-Immigration Adjudicator ikkonstata li din l-assigurazzjoni medika ma setgħetx tkopri kura urġenti mogħtija fir-Renju Unit. Hija l-qorti tar-rinviju li għandha tivverifika l-eżattezza ta’ din il-konstatazzjoni fid-dawl tad-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1408/71, ta’ l-14 ta’ Ġunju 1971, dwar l-applikazzjoni ta’ l-iskemi tas-siġurtà soċjali għall-persuni impjegati u l-familja tagħhom li jiċċaqilqu ġewwa l-Komunità (ĠU L 149, p. 2). B’mod partikolari, għandu jsir riferiment għall-Artikolu 19(1)(a) ta’ dan ir-regolament li jiggarantixxi, għar-responsabbiltà ta’ l-Istat Membru kompetenti, lill-ħaddiem impjegat jew li jaħdem għal rasu, residenti fi Stat Membru ieħor, li jkollu bżonn kura fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat Membru ta’ residenza, id-dritt li jibbenefika mill-benefiċċji ta’ mard in natura mogħtija minn dan l-Istat ta’ l-aħħar.
86 However, the application of the limitations and conditions acknowledged in Article 18(1) EC in respect of the exercise of that right of residence is subject to judicial review. Consequently, any limitations and conditions imposed on that right do not prevent the provisions of Article 18(1) EC from conferring on individuals rights which are enforceable by them and which the national courts must protect (see, to that effect, Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, paragraph 7). 90. Fi kwalunkwe każ, il-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet imsemmija fl-Artikolu 18 KE u previsti fid-Direttiva 90/364 huma bbażati fuq l-idea li l-eżerċizju tad-dritt ta’ residenza taċ-ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni jista’ jkun suġġett għall-interessi leġittimi ta’ l-Istati Membri. F’dan ir-rigward għandu jiġi mfakkar li mir-raba’ premessa tad-Direttiva 90/364 jirriżulta li l-benefiċjarji tad-dritt ta’ residenza m’għandhomx isiru piż “irraġjonevoli” fuq il-finanzi pubbliċi ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti.
87 As regards the limitations and conditions resulting from the provisions of secondary legislation, Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides that Member States can require of the nationals of a Member State who wish to enjoy the right to reside within their territory that they themselves and the members of their families be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. 91. Madankollu, dawn il-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet għandhom jiġu applikati filwaqt li jiġu mħarsa l-limiti imposti mid-dritt Komunitarju u in konformità mal-prinċipji ġenerali ta’ dan id-dritt, b’mod partikolari l-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità. Dan ifisser li l-miżuri nazzjonali meħuda f’dan ir-rigward għandhom ikunu xierqa u meħtieġa sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan mixtieq (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tat-2 ta’ Awwissu 1993, Alluè et , C-259/91 u C-332/91, Ġabra p. I-4309, punt 15). 88 As to the application of those conditions for the purposes of the Baumbast case, it is clear from the file that Mr Baumbast pursues an activity as an employed person in non-member countries for German companies and that neither he nor his family has used the social assistance system in the host Member State. In those circumstances, it has not been denied that Mr Baumbast satisfies the condition relating to sufficient resources imposed by Directive 90/364. 92. Fir-rigward ta’ l-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità għaċ-ċirkustanzi tal-kawża Baumbast, għandu jiġi mfakkar, l-ewwel nett, li mhuwiex ikkontestat li s-Sur Baumbast għandu riżorsi biżżejjed fis-sens tad-Direttiva 90/364; it-tieni nett, li dan ħadem u għalhekk kien residenti b’mod legali fl-Istat Membru ospitanti għal diversi snin, l-ewwel bħala impjegat u mbagħad bħala persuna li taħdem għal rasha; it-tielet nett, li, matul dan il-perijodu, il-familja tiegħu kienet ukoll residenti fl-Istat Membru ospitanti u baqgħet hemm saħansitra wara l-waqfien ta’ l-attivitajiet tiegħu bħala impjegat u bħala persuna li taħdem għal rasha f’dan l-Istat; ir-raba’ nett, li la s-Sur Baumbast u lanqas il-membri tal-familja tiegħu ma saru piż għall-finanzji pubbliċi ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti u, il-ħames nett, li kemm is-Sur Baumbast u kemm il-familja tiegħu għandhom assigurazzjoni medika sħiħa fi Stat Membru ieħor ta’ l-Unjoni.
89 As to the condition relating to sickness insurance, the file shows that both Mr Baumbast and the members of his family are covered by comprehensive sickness insurance in Germany. The Adjudicator seems to have found that that sickness insurance could not cover emergency treatment given in the United Kingdom. It is for the national tribunal to determine whether that finding is correct in the light of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416). Particular reference should be made to Article 19(1)(a) of that regulation which ensures, at the expense of the competent Member State, the right for an employed or self-employed person residing in the territory of another Member State other than the competent State whose condition requires treatment in the territory of the Member State of residence to receive sickness benefits in kind provided by the institution of the latter State. 93. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, jekk is-Sur Baumbast jiġi mċaħħad mill-eżerċizzju tad-dritt ta’ residenza mogħti lilu mill-Artikolu 18(1) KE, bis-saħħa ta’ l-applikazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva 90/364 minħabba li l-assigurazzjoni medika tiegħu ma tkoprix il-kura urġenti li huwa jirċievi fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, dan ikun jikkostitwixxi ostakolu sproporzjonat għall-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt. 90 In any event, the limitations and conditions which are referred to in Article 18 EC and laid down by Directive 90/364 are based on the idea that the exercise of the right of residence of citizens of the Union can be subordinated to the legitimate interests of the Member States. In that regard, according to the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 90/364 beneficiaries of the right of residence must not become an `unreasonable' burden on the public finances of the host Member State. 94. Għaldaqstant, għall-ewwel parti tat-tielet domanda għandha tingħata r-risposta li ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li ma jkunx għadu jibbenefika fl-Istat Membru ospitanti minn dritt ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant jista’, fil-kwalità tiegħu ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, jibbenefika, hemmhekk, minn dritt ta’ residenza bl-applikazzjoni diretta ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE. L-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt huwa suġġett għal-limitazzjonijiet u għall-kundizzjonijiet imsemmija f’din id-dispożizzjoni iżda l-awtoritajiet kompetenti u, jekk ikun il-każ, il-qrati nazzjonali, għandhom jassiguraw li dawn il-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet jiġu applikati b’osservanza tal-prinċipji ġenerali tad-dritt Komunitarju u, b’mod partikolari, tal-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità.
91 However, those limitations and conditions must be applied in compliance with the limits imposed by Community law and in accordance with the general principles of that law, in particular the principle of proportionality. That means that national measures adopted on that subject must be necessary and appropriate to attain the objective pursued (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91 Alluè and Others [1993] ECR I-4309, paragraph 15). 95. Permezz tat-tieni u tat-tielet partijiet tat-tielet domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju tistaqsi jekk, fil-każ li s-Sur Baumbast igawdi minn dritt ta’ residenza fuq il-bażi ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE, il-membri tal-familja tiegħu jibbenefikawx minn drittijiet ta’ residenza fuq l-istess bażi. Fid-dawl tar-risposti mogħtija għall-ewwel żewġ domandi, mhuwiex meħtieġ li tingħata risposta għal dawn il-partijiet tat-tielet domanda.
92 In respect of the application of the principle of proportionality to the facts of the Baumbast case, it must be recalled, first, that it has not been denied that Mr Baumbast has sufficient resources within the meaning of Directive 90/364; second, that he worked and therefore lawfully resided in the host Member State for several years, initially as an employed person and subsequently as a self-employed person; third, that during that period his family also resided in the host Member State and remained there even after his activities as an employed and self-employed person in that State came to an end; fourth, that neither Mr Baumbast nor the members of his family have become burdens on the public finances of the host Member State and, fifth, that both Mr Baumbast and his family have comprehensive sickness insurance in another Member State of the Union. 96. Fid-dawl tar-risposta mogħtija għall-ewwel parti tat-tielet domanda, lanqas ma huwa meħtieġ li tingħata risposta għar-raba’ domanda.
93 Under those circumstances, to refuse to allow Mr Baumbast to exercise the right of residence which is conferred on him by Article 18(1) EC by virtue of the application of the provisions of Directive 90/364 on the ground that his sickness insurance does not cover the emergency treatment given in the host Member State would amount to a disproportionate interference with the exercise of that right. Fuq l-ispejjeż 94 The answer to the first part of the third question must therefore be that a citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary, the national courts must ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles of Community law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality. 97. L-ispejjeż sostnuti mill-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u mill-Gvern tal-Ġermanja, kif ukoll mill-Kummissjoni, li ppreżentaw osservazzjonijiet lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, ma jistgħux jitħallsu lura. Peress li l-proċedura għandha, fir-rigward tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, in-natura ta’ kwistjoni mqajma quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, hija din il-qorti li tiddeċiedi fuq l-ispejjeż. 95 By the second and third parts of the third question, the national tribunal seeks to ascertain whether, if Mr Baumbast enjoys a right of residence on the basis of Article 18(1) EC, the members of his family enjoy rights of residence on the same basis. In the light of the answers given to the first two questions, it is not necessary to answer those parts of the third question. 96 In the light of the answer given to the first part of the third question, nor is it necessary to answer the fourth question. Decision on costs
On those grounds, Għal dawn il-motivi,
THE COURT, IL-QORTI TAL-ĠUSTIZZJA,
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal by order of 28 May 1999, hereby rules: fir-rigward tad-domandi magħmula lilha mill-Immigration Appeal Tribunal permezz ta’ digriet tat-28 ta’ Mejju 1999, tiddikjara li:
1. Children of a citizen of the European Union who have installed themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. The fact that the parents of the children concerned have meanwhile divorced, the fact that only one parent is a citizen of the Union and that parent has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State and the fact that the children are not themselves citizens of the Union are irrelevant in this regard. 1) It-tfal ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li jkunu stabbilixew ruħhom fi Stat Membru filwaqt li l-ġenitur tagħhom kien jeżerċita drittijiet ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant f’dan l-Istat Membru għandhom id-dritt li jgħixu hemmhekk sabiex isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali, in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1612/68, tal-15 ta’ Ottubru 1968, dwar il-libertà tal-moviment għall-ħaddiema fi ħdan il-Komunità. Il-fatt li fil-frattemp il-ġenituri ta’ dawn it-tfal ikunu ddivorzjaw, il-fatt li wieħed biss mill-ġenituri jkun ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni u li dan il-ġenitur ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti jew il-fatt li l-tfal mhumiex huma stess ċittadini ta’ l-Unjoni m’għandhom ebda rilevanza f’dan ir-rigward. 2. Where children have the right to reside in a host Member State in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, that provision must be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State. 2) Meta t-tfal jibbenefikaw minn dritt ta’ residenza fi Stat Membru ospitanti sabiex hemmhekk isegwu korsijiet edukattivi ġenerali in konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 1612/68, din id-dispożizzjoni għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li tippermetti lill-ġenitur li effettivament huwa responsabbli għall-kura ta’ dawn it-tfal, irrispettivament min-nazzjonalità tiegħu, sabiex jgħix magħhom b’tali mod li jiġi ffaċilitat l-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt minkejja l-fatt li l-ġenituri fil-frattemp ikunu ddivorzjaw jew li l-ġenitur li għandu l-kwalità ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropa ma jkunx għadu ħaddiem migrant fl-Istat Membru ospitanti. 3. A citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary, the national courts must ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles of Community law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality. 3) Ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li ma jkunx għadu jibbenefika fl-Istat Membru ospitanti minn dritt ta’ residenza bħala ħaddiem migrant jista’, fil-kwalità tiegħu ta’ ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni, jibbenefika, hemmhekk, minn dritt ta’ residenza bl-applikazzjoni diretta ta’ l-Artikolu 18(1) KE. L-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt huwa suġġett għal-limitazzjonijiet u għall-kundizzjonijiet imsemmija f’din id-dispożizzjoni iżda l-awtoritajiet kompetenti u, jekk ikun il-każ, il-qrati nazzjonali, għandhom jassiguraw li dawn il-limitazzjonijiet u l-kundizzjonijiet jiġu applikati b’osservanza tal-prinċipji ġenerali tad-dritt Komunitarju u, b’mod partikolari, tal-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità. Top