This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0331
Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16). (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)
Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16). (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)
Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16). (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)
OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16). (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Netherlands, Belgium) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), H.F v Belgische Staat (C-366/16).
(Joined Cases C-331/16 and C-366/16) ( 1 )
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion on grounds of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society — Person whose asylum application has been refused for reasons within the scope of Article 1F of the Geneva Convention or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 28(1) — Article 28(3)(a) — Protection against expulsion — Residence in the host Member State for the previous ten years — Imperative grounds of public security — Meaning)’
2018/C 231/04Language of the case: DutchReferring court
Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Middelburg, Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: K. (C-331/16), H.F. (C-366/16)
Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-331/16), Belgische Staat (C-366/16).
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 27(2) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a European Union citizen or a third-country national family member of such a citizen, who applies for a right of residence in the territory of a Member State, has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status under Article 1F of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 and supplemented by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967, or Article 12(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, does not enable the competent authorities of that Member State to consider automatically that the mere presence of that individual in its territory constitutes, whether or not there is any risk of re-offending, a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, capable of justifying the adoption of measures on grounds of public policy or public security. The finding that there is such a threat must be based on an assessment, by the competent authorities of the host Member State, of the personal conduct of the individual concerned, taking into consideration the findings of fact in the decision to exclude that individual from refugee status and the factors on which that decision is based, particularly the nature and gravity of the crimes or acts that he is alleged to have committed, the degree of his individual involvement in them, whether there are any grounds for excluding criminal liability, and whether or not he has been convicted. That overall assessment must also take account of the time that has elapsed since the date when the crimes or acts were allegedly committed and the subsequent conduct of that individual, particularly in relation to whether that conduct reveals the persistence in him of a disposition hostile to the fundamental values enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 TEU, capable of disturbing the peace of mind and physical security of the population. The mere fact that the past conduct of that individual took place in a specific historical and social context in his country of origin, which is not liable to recur in the host Member State, does not preclude such a finding. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, the competent authorities of the host Member State must, in addition, weigh the protection of the fundamental interest of society at issue, on the one hand, against the interests of the person concerned in the exercise of his right to freedom of movement and residence as a Union citizen and in his right to respect for private and family life. |
|
2. |
Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the measures envisaged entail the expulsion of the individual concerned from the host Member State, that State must take account of, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in that Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with that Member State. Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a European Union citizen who does not have a right of permanent residence in the host Member State, within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive. |
( 1 ) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.