Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CA0161

    Case C-161/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision withdrawing residence authorisation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law — Plea based on public policy)

    OJ C 156, 2.5.2016, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.5.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 156/18


    Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge

    (Case C-161/15) (1)

    ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision withdrawing residence authorisation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law - Plea based on public policy))

    (2016/C 156/25)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Conseil d’État

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

    Defendant: État belge

    Operative part of the judgment

    EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law is admissible only if that plea is based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, must be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfies the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.


    (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


    Top