Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-145/09 / Judgment

Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
23/11/2010
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:708

Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 45 - Freedom of movement and of residence

Title II: Freedoms

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-145/09 / Judgment
    Key facts of the case:
     

    Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg - Germany.

    Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 16(4) and 28(3)(a) - Union citizen born and having resided for over 30 years in the host Member State - Absences from the host Member State - Criminal convictions - Expulsion decision - Imperative grounds of public security.
     
    Outcome of the case:
     

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

    1. Article 28(3)(a) 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, in order to determine whether a Union citizen has resided in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the expulsion decision, which is the decisive criterion for granting enhanced protection under that provision, all the relevant factors must be taken into account in each individual case, in particular the duration of each period of absence from the host Member State, the cumulative duration and the frequency of those absences, and the reasons why the person concerned left the host Member State, reasons which may establish whether those absences involve the transfer to another State of the centre of the personal, family or occupational interests of the person concerned.
    2. Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’ which may justify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in the host Member State for the preceding 10 years. Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is covered by the concept of ‘serious grounds of public policy or public security’.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    2) In the application of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, a balance must be struck between the exceptional nature of the threat to public security as a result of the personal conduct of the person concerned, assessed if necessary at the time when the expulsion decision is to be made, by reference in particular to the possible penalties and the sentences imposed, the degree of involvement in the criminal activity, and, if appropriate, the risk of reoffending, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the risk of compromising the social rehabilitation of the Union citizen in the State in which he has become genuinely integrated, which is not only in his interest but also in that of the European Union in general.

    The sentence passed must be taken into account as one element in that complex of factors. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment cannot lead to an expulsion decision without the factors described in the preceding paragraph being taken into account, which is for the national court to verify. In that assessment, account must be taken of the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures, in so far as reasons of public interest may be relied on to justify a national measure which is liable to obstruct the exercise of freedom of movement for persons only if the measure in question takes account of such rights, in particular the right to respect for private and family life as set forth in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    ...

    52) In that assessment, account must be taken of the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures, in so far as reasons of public interest may be relied on to justify a national measure which is liable to obstruct the exercise of freedom of movement for persons only if the measure in question takes account of such rights (see, inter alia, Orfanopoulos and Oliveri, paragraphs 97 to 99), in particular the right to respect for private and family life as set forth in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see, inter alia, Case C‑400/10 PPU McB [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 53, and Eur. Court H.R., Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 61 et seq., 23 June 2008).