This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0136
Case C-136/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
Case C-136/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
Case C-136/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
IO C 164, 13.5.2019, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
13.5.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 164/21 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
(Case C-136/19)
(2019/C 164/24)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Conseil d’État
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: B.M.M., B.M.
Defendant: État belge
Questions referred
1. |
In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor? |
2. |
Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy? |