This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0225
Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19) v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (References for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Community Code on Visas — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 32(1) to (3) — Decision to refuse a visa — Annex VI — Standard form — Statement of reasons — Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States — Article 22 — Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States — Objection to the issuing of a visa — Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa — Scope of judicial review — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy)
Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19) v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (References for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Community Code on Visas — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 32(1) to (3) — Decision to refuse a visa — Annex VI — Standard form — Statement of reasons — Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States — Article 22 — Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States — Objection to the issuing of a visa — Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa — Scope of judicial review — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy)
Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19) v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (References for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Community Code on Visas — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 32(1) to (3) — Decision to refuse a visa — Annex VI — Standard form — Statement of reasons — Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States — Article 22 — Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States — Objection to the issuing of a visa — Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa — Scope of judicial review — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy)
OJ C 35, 1.2.2021, p. 10–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 35/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19) v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
(Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19) (1)
(References for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Community Code on Visas - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 32(1) to (3) - Decision to refuse a visa - Annex VI - Standard form - Statement of reasons - Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States - Article 22 - Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States - Objection to the issuing of a visa - Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa - Scope of judicial review - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy)
(2021/C 35/11)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19)
Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
Operative part of the judgment
Article 32(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a Member State which has adopted a final decision refusing to issue a visa on the basis of Article 32(1)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, because another Member State objected to the issuing of that visa is required to indicate, in that decision, the identity of the Member State which raised that objection, the specific ground for refusal based on that objection, accompanied, where appropriate, by the essence of the reasons for that objection, and the authority which the visa applicant may contact in order to ascertain the remedies available in that other Member State and, secondly, that, where an appeal is lodged against that decision on the basis of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, the courts of the Member State which adopted that decision cannot examine the substantive legality of the objection raised by another Member State to the issuing of the visa.