Case C-230/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21(1) TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national — Entry by that family member into the territory of the Member State in question subsequent to the return of the Union citizen to that Member State)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen

(Case C-230/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21(1) TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national — Entry by that family member into the territory of the Member State in question subsequent to the return of the Union citizen to that Member State)’

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn

Defendant: Udlændingestyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not provide for the grant of a derived right of residence in another Member State, under Union law, to a third-country national family member of a Union citizen who is a national of that Member State and who returns there after having resided, pursuant to and in conformity with Union law, in another Member State, when the family member of the Union citizen concerned has not entered the territory of the Member State of origin of the Union citizen or has not applied for a residence permit as a ‘natural consequence’ of the return to that Member State of the Union citizen in question, provided that such rules require, in the context of an overall assessment, that other relevant factors also be taken into account, in particular factors capable of showing that, in spite of the time which elapsed between the return of the Union citizen to that Member State and the entry of the family member who is a third-country national, in the same Member State, the family life created and strengthened in the host Member State has not ended, so as to justify the granting to the family member in question of a derived right of residence; it is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case.

( 1 ) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.