Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0554

Case C-554/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.

OJ C 9, 11.1.2014, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.1.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/20


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.

(Case C-554/13)

2014/C 9/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Z. Zh.

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

and

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Other party: I.O.

Questions referred

1.

Does a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State pose a risk to public policy, within the meaning of Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348; ‘the Return Directive’), merely because he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence under national law, or is it necessary that he should have been convicted in a criminal court for the commission of that offence and, in the latter case, must that conviction have become final and absolute?

2.

In the assessment as to whether a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, do other facts and circumstances of the case, in addition to a suspicion or a conviction, also play a role, such as the severity or type of criminal offence under national law, the time that has elapsed and the intention of the person concerned?

3.

Do the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant to the assessment referred to in Question 2 also have a role to play in the option provided for in Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, in a case where the person concerned poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision, of being able to choose between, on the one hand, refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure and, on the other hand, granting a period for voluntary departure which is shorter than seven days?


Top