CJEU - C 256/11 / Judgment Murat Deveci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres

Key facts of the case:
 
The common feature of the five cases referred to together to CJ is the fact that “the applicants in the main proceedings are all third-country nationals who wish to live with their family members, who are” EU “citizens resident in Austria and who are nationals of that Member State. … the Union citizens concerned have never exercised their right to free movement and that they are not maintained by the applicants in the main proceedings” (Judgment, para 22). “By contrast, … the facts giving rise to the dispute differ as regards, inter alia, whether the entry into Austria of the applicants in the main proceedings was lawful or unlawful, their current place of residence as well as the nature of their family relationship with the Union citizen concerned and whether they are maintained by that Union citizen” (Judgment, para 23). One of the applicants is a Turkish national.
 
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
  1. European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with a member of his family who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify. 2. Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that the enactment of new legislation more restrictive that the previous legislation, which, for its part, relaxed earlier legislation concerning the conditions for the exercise of the freedom of establishment of Turkish nationals at the time of the entry into force of that protocol in the Member State concerned must be considered to be a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 

 

22, 23