CJEU Case C-477/24 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 7(3)(b) – Derived right of residence – Third-country national divorced from a Union citizen who was no longer a worker or self-employed person at the time of initiation of the divorce proceedings – Meaning of ‘duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed for more than one year’ – Single continuous period of one year – Person having received social welfare – Proof – Applicant’s right of access to the social welfare file of his former spouse – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of good administration and right to an effective judicial remedy

Outcome of the case:

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

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

Article 7(3)(b) 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 meaning that the expression ‘for more than one year’ in that provision refers to a single continuous period of employment or self-employment of more than one year.

Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Union citizen residing in the territory of a Member State other than that of which he or she is a national receives an unemployment allowance from that Member State is not, as such, to be regarded, by the authority of that Member State which is competent to issue residence cards, as constituting adequate proof that that person is in ‘duly recorded’ involuntary unemployment within the meaning of that provision.

Directive 2004/38, read in the light of the general principle of good administration, and of the right to an effective judicial remedy affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority which is competent to issue residence cards is obliged to communicate its file, if necessary in suitably redacted form, to an applicant who is a third-country national, or to his or her representative, before making a decision relating to the retention of his or her right of residence or to the grant of a residence card pursuant to Article 14 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 13 thereof, where the documents in the file in question, on which the competent national authority relied in refusing the residence card and which have been requested by that third-country national, contain information relating, inter alia, to the periods of employment of his or her former spouse, a Union citizen, and the former spouse has refused to provide the third-country national with that information after having been invited by him or her to do so.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

56. It should be borne in mind, in the second place, that Article 41 of the Charter, which affirms the right to good administration and which provides, in paragraph 2, that that right includes, in particular, the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken (subparagraph (a)); the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy (subparagraph (b)); and the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions (subparagraph (c)), is addressed not to the Member States but solely to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 November 2014, Mukarubega, C‑166/13, EU:C:2014:2336, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).

57. Consequently, an applicant for a residence permit cannot derive directly from Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter a right to be heard in all proceedings relating to his or her application or a right of access to the file in the context of a national procedure (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 July 2014, YS and Others, C‑141/12 and C‑372/12, EU:C:2014:2081, paragraph 67, and of 5 November 2014, Mukarubega, C‑166/13, EU:C:2014:2336, paragraph 44).

58. By contrast, the right to good administration affirmed in Article 41 of the Charter reflects a general principle of EU law which is intended to apply to the Member States when they implement that law (see judgment of 13 July 2023, Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova, C‑765/21, EU:C:2023:566, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

...

60.Second, in the context of judicial proceedings, respect for the rights of the defence guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter means that an applicant must be able not only to ascertain the reasons upon which the decision taken in relation to him or her is based, but also to have access to all the material in the file on which the authority has based that decision, in order to be able effectively to comment on that material (judgment of 25 April 2024, NW and PQ (Classified information), C‑420/22 and C‑528/22, EU:C:2024:344, paragraph 92 and the case-law cited).

...

68. However, that weighing up cannot lead to the rights of defence of the person concerned being deprived of all effectiveness and to that person’s right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter being rendered meaningless, in particular by the failure to inform him or her or, as the case may be, his or her representative, at the very least of the substance of the information relating to the periods of the former spouse’s employment and on which the decision taken against him or her is based (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 April 2024, NW and PQ (Classified information), C‑420/22 and C‑528/22, EU:C:2024:344, paragraph 95 and the case-law cited).

...

70. In the light of the above, the answer to the third question is that Directive 2004/38, read in the light of the general principle of good administration, and of the right to an effective judicial remedy affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority which is competent to issue residence cards is obliged to communicate its file, if necessary in suitably redacted form, to an applicant who is a third-country national, or to his or her representative, before making a decision relating to the retention of his or her right of residence or to the grant of a residence card pursuant to Article 14 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 13 thereof, where the documents in the file in question, on which the competent national authority relied in refusing the residence card and which have been requested by that third-country national, contain information relating, inter alia, to the periods of employment of his or her former spouse, a Union citizen, and the former spouse has refused to provide the third-country national with that information after having been invited by him or her to do so.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)