Case C‑302/18

X

v

Belgische Staat

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen)

 Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 3 October 2019

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status — Article 5(1)(a) — Stable, regular and sufficient resources)

Border controls, asylum and immigration — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109 –Acquisition of long-term resident status — Condition –Stable, regular and sufficient resources — Concept — Resources made available by a third party — Included — Conditions

[Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c); Council Directive 2003/109, Art. 5(1)(a)]

(see paragraphs 26-31, 34-36, 40-44, operative part)

Résumé

In order to prove that he has stable, regular and sufficient resources, an applicant for long-term resident status may also rely on resources made available to him by a third party

In the judgment in X (C‑302/18), delivered on 3 October 2019, the Court interpreted Directive 2003/109 (1) in so far as it provides that Member States are to require third-country nationals, in order to obtain long-term resident status, to provide evidence that they have, for themselves and for dependent family members, stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain themselves and the members of their families, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned. (2) The Court held that the concept of ‘resources’ does not concern solely the own resources of the applicant for long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to him by a third party on condition that, in the light of the individual circumstances of that applicant, they are stable, regular and sufficient.

This judgment was delivered in the context of proceedings between X, a Cameroonian national, and the Belgische Staat (Belgian State), concerning the rejection of an application for authorisation to settle and to obtain long-term resident status. In his application, X relied on his brother’s resources and submitted a written undertaking signed by his brother stating that he would ensure that X, as well as his dependent family members, had stable, regular and sufficient means of subsistence. The application was rejected on the ground that X does not have his own resources and that the mere fact that his costs are borne by his brother does not imply that he has a regular and stable income.

After finding that the concept of ‘resources’, referred to in the provision at issue, is an autonomous concept of EU law, the Court observed that the wording of that provision does not, on its own, make it possible to determine the nature or origin of the resources referred to therein. Certain language versions of the Directive use a term equivalent to the word ‘resources’, whereas other language versions use terms equivalent to the concept of ‘income’. Thus, the Court gave an interpretation based on both the objective of the Directive and the context of which the provision at issue forms part and concluded, in particular, that the Directive does not, in principle, allow additional conditions to be laid down relating to the origin of the resources referred to by the provision at issue.

Next, the Court held that it also follows from the examination of the wording, objective and context of the provision concerned of Directive 2003/109, in the light of the comparable provisions of Directives 2004/38 (3) and 2003/86, (4) that the origin of the resources referred to in that first provision is not a decisive criterion for the Member State concerned for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are stable, regular and sufficient. Even though they have a different scope, the conditions of ‘resources’ referred to in Directive 2003/109 and in Directive 2004/38 may be interpreted in an analogous manner, as not precluding the person concerned from relying on resources from a third party who is a member of his family. Moreover, it follows from Directive 2003/86 that it is not the source of the resources, but their stability and sufficiency, in view of the individual situation of the person concerned, that is decisive.

Lastly, the Court added that it is for the competent national authority to analyse whether resources from a third party or a member of the applicant’s family must be considered stable, regular and sufficient. In that regard, it is permissible to take into account the legally binding nature of a commitment of cost bearing by a third party or a member of the applicant’s family, the family relationship between the applicant and the member or members of the family prepared to bear his costs, as well as the nature and permanence of the resources of the member or members of the applicant’s family.

1      Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

2      Article 5(1)(a).

3      Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35).

4      Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 2).