Key facts of the case:
Ms ..., from Togo, had two children born in France and with French nationality. She applied for a family member residence permit in Luxembourg, which was refused by the Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration (herewith ‘Minister’) because according to ational legislation this type of residence permit could only be granted to family members in the ascending line of the applicant. Ms ... brought an action before the Administrative Tribunal seeking the annulment of the Minister’s decision. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case and Ms ... filed an appeal to the Administrative Court. Ms ... also suggested to the Administrative Court that a question for preliminary ruling would be addressed to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which the Administrative Court did. The question addressed concerned the rights of citizens of the Union, namely the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Considering the CJUE preliminary ruling, the Administrative Court concluded that in the case at present Articles 20 and 21 of the TFEU could be interpreted in such a way as not opposed to a refusal of residence in Luxembourgish territory, since the fact that the children would have to leave the territory of Luxembourg would not mean that they also qould have to necessarily leave from the EU territory (they could still live in France, the country of their nationality). Furthermore, the Court did not consider the refusal of a resident permit in this situation to be in breach of the principle of equality as provided for in Article 111 of the Constitution, nor in breach of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
By request to the office of the Administrative Court on 31 October 2011, Ms ..., stating always to act on its own behalf and on behalf of her two minor children ... and ... ... both born in Luxembourg on 17 August 2008 of French nationality has has filed an appeal of the above judgment of 21 September 2011, seeking annulment "for violation of the law, respectively for violation of community rights, and international provisions, respectively Articles 103 and 111 of the Act of 29 August 2008 on freedom of movement and immigration, violation of the principle of equality between people in the same situation as the appellant, respectively for violation of the right to defense, "while suggesting a series of three questions to address, where appropriate, to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the provisions of Articles 12, 17 and 18 TEC, and Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, hereinafter "the Charter of Fundamental rights." By judgment of 16 February 2012, the Court declared the appeal admissible on the merits for, before further progress in the procedure, address the ECJ the following question: Is Article 20 TFEU — if necessary, read in conjunction with Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or with one or more of those provisions read separately or in conjunction — to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing a third-country national, with sole responsibility for his or her infants who are citizens of the European Union, residence in the Member State of residence of the children, where they have been living with that person since birth, without having that nationality, while refusing the third-country national a residence permit, or even a work permit? Are such decisions to be regarded as being in the nature of decisions depriving those children, in their country of residence, in which they have lived since birth, of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the European Union also in the situation where their other direct ascendant, with whom they have never shared family life, is resident in another Member State of the European Union, of which that person is a national?
Par requête d’appel déposée au greffe de la Cour administrative le 31 octobre 2011, Madame ..., déclarant toujours agir en son nom propre et en celui de ses deux enfants mineurs ... et ... ..., nés tous les deux au Luxembourg le 17 août 2008, de nationalité française, a régulièrement fait entreprendre le jugement précité du 21 septembre 2011 dont elle demande l’annulation : « pour violation de la loi, respectivement pour violation des droits communautaires, et des dispositions internationales, respectivement des articles 103 et 111 de la loi du 29 août 2008 relative à la libre circulation et l’immigration, la violation du principe de l’égalité des administrés se trouvant dans la même situation que l’appelante, respectivement pour violation du droit de la défense », tout en suggérant une série de trois questions préjudicielles à adresser le cas échéant à la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) en relation avec les disposition des articles 12, 17 et 18 CE ainsi désignés, ainsi que des articles 21, 24 et 34 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union Européenne , ci-après « la Charte des droits fondamentaux ». Par arrêt du 16 février 2012, la Cour déclara l’appel recevable pour, au fond, avant tout autre progrès en cause, saisir la CJUE de la question préjudicielle suivante : « L’article 20 TFUE, au besoin ensemble les articles 20, 21, 24, 33 et 34 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux, l’un ou plusieurs d’entre eux pris de manière séparée ou combinée, doit-il être interprété en ce sens qu’il s’oppose à ce qu’un État membre, d’une part, refuse à un ressortissant d’un État tiers, qui a à sa seule charge ses enfants en bas âge, citoyens de l’Union, le séjour dans l’État membre de résidence de ces derniers où ils vivent avec lui depuis leur naissance, sans qu’ils en aient la nationalité, et, d’autre part, refuse audit ressortissant d’un État tiers un titre de séjour voire, plus loin, un permis de travail ? De telles décisions sont-elles à considérer comme étant de nature à priver lesdits enfants, dans leur pays de résidence dans lequel ils ont vécu depuis leur naissance, de la jouissance effective de l’essentiel des droits attachés au statut de citoyen de l’Union également dans la circonstance donnée où leur autre ascendant direct, avec lequel ils n’ont jamais eu aucune vie familiale commune, réside dans un autre Etat de l’Union, dont lui-même est un ressortissant?