This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0089
Case C-89/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
Case C-89/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
Case C-89/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
IO C 142, 23.4.2018, p. 33–34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
23.4.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 142/33 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
(Case C-89/18)
(2018/C 142/44)
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Østre Landsret
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: A
Defendant: Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
Questions referred
1. |
In a case where ‘new restrictions’ have been introduced for family reunification between spouses which prima facie infringe the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association relating to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 between the European Economic Community and Turkey establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey), and those restrictions are justified on the basis of the considerations of ‘successful integration’ recognised by the EU Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 April 2016 in Case C-561/14, Genc, (1) see also the judgment of 10 July 2014 in Case C-138/13, Dogan, EU:C:2014:2066, (2) can a rule such as Paragraph 9(7) of the Danish Law on aliens (Udlændingeloven) — under which inter alia it is a general condition for family reunification between a person who is a third country national and has a residence permit in Denmark and that person’s spouse that the couple’s attachment to Denmark be greater than to Turkey — be deemed to be ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, … suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and … not [going] beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’? |
2. |
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, with the result that the attachment requirement is generally deemed to be suitable for ensuring attainment of the integration objective, is it then possible, without infringing the restriction test and the requirement of proportionality:
|
(1) Judgment of the Court of 12th April 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:247.
(2) Judgment of the Court of 10th July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2066.