1.

Does the Court of Justice, having regard to Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC ( 1 ) … and the Nolan judgment (ECLI:EU:C:2012:638), have the jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by a Netherlands court on the interpretation of certain provisions of that Directive in a dispute concerning an application for entry and residence of a family member of a sponsor who has Netherlands nationality, if that Directive was declared to apply directly and unconditionally to such family members in Netherlands law?

2.

Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2003/86/EC … be interpreted as meaning that the rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member on the grounds of public policy requires that reasons be stated as to why the personal conduct of the family member concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society?

3.

If question 2 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … that apply to the reasons for rejecting an application for entry and residence of a family member on the grounds of public policy?

Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … therefore be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which an application for entry and residence of a family member can be rejected on grounds of public policy on the basis of convictions during an earlier stay in the Member State concerned, so that, based on the criteria laid down in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) of 2 August 2001, Boultif v Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD005427300, and of 18 October 2006, Üner v The Netherlands, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099, a balance is struck between the interest of the family member concerned and the sponsor concerned to exercise the right to family reunification in the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the interests of the Netherlands State to protect public order, on the other hand?