Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Date: 2014-09-10
22. According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, the judgment in Koushkaki , C‑84/12, EU:C:2013:862, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
23. In the first place, as regards the general structure of Directive 2004/114, it must first of all be noted that Article 5 of that directive provides that the admission of a third-country national to the territory of a Member State under Directive 2004/114 is to be subject to the verification of documentary evidence showing that the person in question meets the general conditions laid down in Article 6 of that directive and, additionally, where the third-country national is seeking admission for study purposes, the specific conditions laid down in Article 7 of that directive.
24. In particular, Member States may verify whether, under Article 6(1)(d) of Directive 2004/114, read in the light of recital 14 thereto, there are grounds relating to the existence of a threat to public policy, public security or public health, which may justify refusal to admit a third-country national.
27. It is thus clear from those provisions of Directive 2004/114, read together, that, where students from third countries meet the general and specific conditions exhaustively listed in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, they must, pursuant to Article 12 of the directive, be issued with a residence permit.
28. In the second place, as regards the objectives of Directive 2004/114, it can be seen from Article 1(a) of that directive, read in conjunction with recital 24 thereto, that the directive seeks to determine the conditions for the admission of third-country nationals to the territory of Member States for study purposes, for a period exceeding three months.
29. In that regard, the Court has held that, according to recitals 6 and 7 to Directive 2004/114, that directive is intended to promote the mobility of students who are third-country nationals to the European Union for the purpose of education, that mobility being intended to promote Europe as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training ( Sommer , C‑15/11, EU:C:2012:371, paragraph 39). In particular, recital 6 to the directive states that the approximation of the national legislation of the Member States relating to the conditions of entry and residence is part of that objective.
30. To allow a Member State to introduce, in relation to the admission of third-country nationals for study purposes, conditions additional to those laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/114 would be contrary to the objective pursued by that directive of promoting the mobility of such nationals.
33. It is true that Directive 2004/114 allows Member States to exercise a measure of discretion when considering applications for admission. However, it should be noted that, as the Advocate General observed in point 49 of his Opinion, the discretion available to the national authorities relates only to the conditions laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive and, within that context, to the assessment of the relevant facts in order to determine whether those conditions are met and, in particular, whether there are grounds relating to the existence of a threat to public policy, public security or public health which preclude the admission of the third-country national.
34. Consequently, for the purposes of the appraisal to be made in relation to the conditions for admission on the basis of Directive 2004/114, there is nothing to prevent Member States, in accordance with recital 15 to that directive, from requiring all the evidence necessary to assess the coherence of the application for admission, in order to fight against abuse and misuse of the procedure set out in that directive.