This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CA0836
Case C-836/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real v RH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 20 TFEU — European Union citizens — Union citizen who has never exercised the freedom of movement — Application for a temporary residence permit for the spouse, who is a third-country national — Rejection — Obligation to support the spouse — Union citizen having insufficient resources — Obligation of the spouses to live together — National legislation and practice — Effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on Union citizens — Deprived)
Case C-836/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real v RH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 20 TFEU — European Union citizens — Union citizen who has never exercised the freedom of movement — Application for a temporary residence permit for the spouse, who is a third-country national — Rejection — Obligation to support the spouse — Union citizen having insufficient resources — Obligation of the spouses to live together — National legislation and practice — Effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on Union citizens — Deprived)
Case C-836/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real v RH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 20 TFEU — European Union citizens — Union citizen who has never exercised the freedom of movement — Application for a temporary residence permit for the spouse, who is a third-country national — Rejection — Obligation to support the spouse — Union citizen having insufficient resources — Obligation of the spouses to live together — National legislation and practice — Effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on Union citizens — Deprived)
IO C 137, 27.4.2020, p. 22–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 27/02/2020
- Date lodged:
- 28/12/2018
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Spáinnis
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62018CJ0836
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
27.4.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 137/22 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real v RH
(Case C-836/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 20 TFEU - European Union citizens - Union citizen who has never exercised the freedom of movement - Application for a temporary residence permit for the spouse, who is a third-country national - Rejection - Obligation to support the spouse - Union citizen having insufficient resources - Obligation of the spouses to live together - National legislation and practice - Effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on Union citizens - Deprived)
(2020/C 137/28)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real
Defendant: RH
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from rejecting an application for family reunification submitted by the spouse, who is a third-country national, of a Union citizen who holds the nationality of that Member State and who has never exercised the freedom of movement, on the sole ground that that Union citizen does not have, for him or herself and his or her spouse, sufficient resources not to become a burden on the national social assistance system, without it having been examined whether there is a relationship of dependency between that Union citizen and his or her spouse of such a kind that, if the latter were refused a derived right of residence, that Union citizen would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and would thus be deprived of the effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by his or her status; |
|
2. |
Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a relationship of dependency, such as to justify the grant of a derived right of residence under that article, does not exist on the sole ground that the national of a Member State, who is of full age and has never exercised the freedom of movement, and his or her spouse, who is of full age and a third-country national, are required to live together, by virtue of the obligations arising out of the marriage under the law of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national. |
