CJEU Case C-819/25 PPU / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C-819/25 PPU / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Immigration policy – Directive 2003/86/EC – Right to family reunification – Article 13(1) – Obligation to grant every facility for obtaining visas – Visas granted subject to the suspensive condition of the recipients’ appearance in person for verification of their identities and of the authenticity of the documents submitted – Recipients unable to travel to a diplomatic or consular post of the Member State that granted the visas – Obligation for a Member State to ensure that such travel takes place or to facilitate such travel – None
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, in the case of a third-country national who has been granted a visa for the purposes of family reunification subject to verification of that person’s identity and of the authenticity of the documents included with the visa application submitted remotely, for which verification it is necessary to appear in person at a diplomatic or consular post of that Member State, is not required to make arrangements for the transfer of that person and to ensure that that person is transferred to that place or to contact one or more third countries in order to facilitate that transfer, in a situation where it is impossible for that person to travel to that place.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
1. This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12), in particular Article 13(1) thereof, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
...
39. By its questions referred for a preliminary ruling, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/86, read in isolation or in conjunction with Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, in the case of a third-country national who has been granted a visa for the purposes of family reunification subject to verification of that person’s identity and of the authenticity of the documents included with the visa application submitted remotely, for which verification it is necessary to appear in person at a diplomatic or consular post of that Member State, is required to make arrangements for the transfer of that person and to ensure that that person is transferred to that place or to contact one or more third countries in order to facilitate that transfer, in a situation where it is impossible for that person to travel to that place.
...
43. In that judgment, the Court held that Article 5(1) of Directive 2003/86, read in conjunction with Article 7 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 24 of the Charter, precludes national legislation which makes the submission of an application for entry and residence for the purposes of family reunification subject to the requirement that the sponsor’s family members appear in person at a diplomatic or consular representation, including in a situation where it is impossible or excessively difficult for them to appear there. However, the Court expressly stated that that interpretation of EU law does not prevent a Member State from requiring the sponsor’s family members to appear in person later on in the family reunification procedure, which takes place in stages, adding, in paragraph 58 of that judgment, that the purpose of such an appearance may be to verify the family ties and the identities of the persons concerned. In that regard, in paragraph 59 of that judgment, the Court stated that the Member State must facilitate such an appearance, notably by issuing consular documents or laissez-passers.
...
59. Lastly, as regards the possible relevance of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter, according to Article 51(1) and (2) of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter apply to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law and do not in any way extend the powers of the European Union as defined in the Treaties.
60. As is apparent from paragraph 57 above, the measures requested by the applicants in the main proceedings, as set out in paragraph 27 above, fall outside the scope of Directive 2003/86, with the result that the refusal to grant such requests does not constitute the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. Consequently, those requests cannot be based on the provisions of that Charter either.
61. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/86, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, in the case of a third-country national who has been granted a visa for the purposes of family reunification subject to verification of that person’s identity and of the authenticity of the documents included with the visa application submitted remotely, for which verification it is necessary to appear in person at a diplomatic or consular post of that Member State, is not required to make arrangements for the transfer of that person and to ensure that that person is transferred to that place or to contact one or more third countries in order to facilitate that transfer, in a situation where it is impossible for that person to travel to that place.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)