X v Belgische Staat.
Date: 2019-10-03
26


Since Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109 does not contain any reference to the national law of the Member States, the concept of ‘resources’, used in that provision, must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union, irrespective of characterisation in the Member States, taking into account the wording of that provision and also the purpose of the rules of which it forms part and its context (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 November 2017, Maio Marques da Rosa, C‑306/16, EU:C:2017:844, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
29


As regards second, the principal objective of Directive 2003/109, it is the integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-term basis in the Member States. Moreover, as is apparent from recital 2 of that directive, by granting the status of long-term resident to such third-country nationals, the directive seeks to approximate the legal status of those nationals to that of Member States’ nationals (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 October 2012, Singh, C‑502/10, EU:C:2012:636, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
30


As regards that integration, according to settled case-law, and as is also confirmed by recital 6 of Directive 2003/109, it results above all from the five-year duration of the legal and continuous residence that shows that the person concerned has put down roots in the country and therefore that that person is a long-term resident (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 July 2014, Tahir, C‑469/13, EU:C:2014:2094, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited). From that perspective, the origin of the resources which an applicant for long-term resident status must possess does not appear to be a decisive criterion.
31


As regards, third, the context of which Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109 forms part, it must be noted that the requirement of having stable, regular and sufficient resources is one of the substantive conditions for obtaining the status of long-term resident. In the light of the objective pursued by Directive 2003/109 and the system which it puts in place, where the third-country nationals satisfy the conditions and comply with the procedures laid down in Directive 2003/109, they have the right to obtain long-term resident status as well as the other rights which stem from the grant of that status (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2012, Commission v Netherlands, C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 68). In that context, as the Advocate General also noted in essence in point 46 of his Opinion, Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109 does not, in principle, allow additional conditions to be laid down relating to the origin of the resources referred to in that provision.
33


The Court has held that an interpretation of the condition concerning the sufficiency of resources laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 as meaning that the person concerned must have such resources himself, without being able to use for that purpose the resources of an accompanying family member, would add to that condition, as formulated in Directive 2004/38, a requirement as to the origin of the resources which, not being necessary for the attainment of the objective pursued by Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38, namely the protection of the public finances of the Member States, would constitute a disproportionate interference with the exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of movement and residence guaranteed by Article 21 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015, Singh and Others, C‑218/14, EU:C:2015:476, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
37


Still in relation to the context of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109, it should be noted that a requirement to have ‘stable and regular resources which are sufficient’ also appears in Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86. The Court has already held that it follows from the actual wording of that provision, in particular the use of the words ‘stable’ and ‘regular’, that the financial resources referred to in that provision must have a certain degree of permanence and continuity. In that regard, according to the second sentence of Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86, the Member States are to assess those resources by reference to, inter alia, their ‘regularity’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2016, Khachab, C‑558/14, EU:C:2016:285, paragraph 30).
38


Thus, Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86 cannot be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of the Member State concerned by an application for family reunification from examining whether the condition relating to the sponsor’s resources is met by taking into account an assessment as regards whether those resources will be retained beyond the date of submission of that application (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2016, Khachab, C‑558/14, EU:C:2016:285, paragraph 31).
39


Moreover, with regard to that provision, and in particular the wording ‘sufficient’, the Court has already noted that, since the extent of needs can vary greatly depending on the individuals, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may indicate a certain sum as a reference amount, but not as meaning that they may impose a minimum income level, irrespective of an actual examination of the situation of each applicant (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 March 2010, Chakroun, C‑578/08, EU:C:2010:117, paragraph 48).