CJEU Case C‑491/21 / Judgment

WA v Direcţia pentru Evidenţa Persoanelor şi Administrarea Bazelor de Date din Ministerul Afacerilor Interne
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
22/02/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2024:143
  • CJEU Case C‑491/21 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21(1) TFEU – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 4 – Issuance of an identity card – Requirement of domicile in the Member State issuing the document – Refusal by the authorities of that Member State to issue an identity card to one of its nationals domiciled in another Member State – Equal treatment – Restrictions – Justification.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC,

    must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen of the European Union, a national of that Member State who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement and freedom to reside in another Member State, is refused an identity card that may serve as a travel document within the European Union, on the sole ground that he or she has established his or her domicile within the territory of that other Member State.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    28 In those circumstances, without there being any need to rule on the interpretation of Article 26 TFEU, Article 20 and Article 21(1) of the Charter and Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2004/38, it must be held that the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 21 TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive 2004/38, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen of the Union, a national of that Member State who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement and freedom to reside in another Member State, is refused an identity card that may serve as a travel document within the European Union, on the sole ground that he or she has established his or her domicile in the territory of that other Member State.

    ...

    49 As regards Article 45 of the Charter, it should be borne in mind that that article guarantees, in paragraph 1 thereof, the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, a right which, according to the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), corresponds to that guaranteed in Article 20(2)(a) TFEU, and is to be exercised, under the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) TFEU and Article 52(2) of the Charter, in accordance with the conditions and the limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.

    50 In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s case-law, a national measure that is liable to obstruct the exercise of freedom of movement for persons may be justified only where such a measure is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, it being the task of the Court to ensure that those rights are respected (judgment of 21 June 2022, Ligue des droits humains, C‑817/19, EU:C:2022:491, paragraph 281 and the case-law cited). Therefore, any restriction on the rights provided for in Article 21(1) TFEU necessarily infringes Article 45(1) of the Charter, since the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, provided for in the Charter, reflects the right conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2022, Ligue des droits humains, C‑817/19, EU:C:2022:491, paragraph 275).

    51 Since a restriction on the right provided for in Article 21(1) TFEU has already been found in paragraph 48 above, such a restriction must also be found to exist as regards the right guaranteed in Article 45(1) of the Charter.

    ...

    60 It follows from those considerations that legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a restriction on the freedom to move and reside within the European Union, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter, in respect of Romanian nationals domiciled in another Member State, which cannot be justified either by the need to confer probative value on the address of domicile indicated on the identity card, or by the effectiveness of the identification and checking of that address by the competent national authority.

    61 It follows from all of the foregoing that Article 21 TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen of the Union, a national of that Member State, who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement and freedom to reside in another Member State, is refused an identity card that may serve as a travel document within the European Union, on the sole ground that he or she has established his or her domicile within the territory of that other Member State.