Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2005-04-14
26. As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that the Community legislature has recognised the importance of ensuring protection for the family life of nationals of the Member States in order to eliminate obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (Case C‑60/00 Carpenter  [2002] I‑6279, paragraph 38, and MRAX , paragraph 53).
28. In that regard, the right of entry into the territory of a Member State granted to a third‑country national who is the spouse of a national of a Member State derives from the family relationship alone. Therefore, issue of a residence permit to a third country national who is the spouse of a Member State national is to be regarded not as a measure giving rise to rights but as a measure by a Member State serving to prove the individual position of a national of a third country with regard to provisions of Community law (see MRAX , paragraph 74).
30. Those conditions are exhaustive in nature (see, to that effect, Case 48/75 Royer  [1976] ECR 497, paragraph 37; Case C-363/89 Roux  [1991] ECR I-273, paragraphs 14 and 15; and Case C-376/89 Giagounidis  [1991] ECR I-1069, paragraph 21).
32. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 3(2) of those directives, when a national of a Member State moves within the Community with a view to exercising the rights conferred on him by the Treaty and those directives, the Member States may demand an entry visa or an equivalent document from members of his family who are not nationals of one of those States. The list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States was determined by Council Regulation (EC) No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States (OJ 1995 L 234, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 574/1999 of 12 March 1999 (OJ 1999 L 72, p. 2), itself replaced by Regulation No 539/2001 ( MRAX , paragraph 56).
33. However, those States must grant family members who are not nationals of one of the Member States every facility for obtaining any necessary visas. In that regard, the Court has held that if the provisions of Directives 68/360 and 73/148 are not to be denied their full effect, a visa must be issued without delay and, as far as possible, at the place of entry into national territory ( MRAX , paragraph 60).
37. Moreover, no mention is made among the conditions governing the issue of a residence permit to family members of Community nationals laid down by Directives 68/360, 73/148 and 90/365 of the type of visa demanded by Spanish legislation (see, to that effect, MRAX , paragraph 56).
41. While it acknowledges that the Spanish legal provisions comply with Directive 64/221 as regards the time-limits laid down for the issue of residence permits, the Commission complains that the Kingdom of Spain did not comply with the time‑limit fixed in Article 5 of that directive in the specific case of Ms Rotte Ventura, who received her residence permit only after a procedure lasting 10 months.
43. As a preliminary point it must be recalled that the Member States’ obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directive and their duty under Article 10 EC to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation, is binding on all the authorities of Member States (Case 80/86 Kolpinghuis Nijmegen  [1987] ECR 3969, paragraph 12).
44. The Court has already held that the Commission may ask the Court to find that, in not having achieved, in a specific case, the result intended by a directive, a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations (Joined Cases C-20/01 and C‑28/01 Commission  v Germany  [2003] ECR I-3609, paragraph 30).