full screen background image


21 September 2017 - October 5 & 6, 2017: ‘International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict’ Colloquium on ‘International Inve ... +++ 21 September 2017 - 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: ... +++ 29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++

*Law of Aliens

Published on March 26th, 2018 | by Georgia Archonti


CJEU: Opinion of Advocate General Bot in case C-246/17 Diallo

On 7 March 2018, Advocate General Bot delivered his Opinion in case C-246/17 Diallo, which concerns the timeframe available for Member States to decide on an application for a residence card to a family member of a European Union citizen under Directive 2004/38/EC. The main proceedings concern Mr Diallo, a Guinean national who is the father of a Dutch national currently residing in Belgium.

Firstly, according to the Advocate General, the use of the term “issuing (…) no later than six months” under Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC requires not only that the decision is adopted within the six-month period, but also that the residence card is made available to the applicant within that period. Interpreting that article otherwise would, according to AG Bot, cast doubt on the effectiveness of the right of residence and, ultimately, undermine the practical effect of that provision. However, the Advocate General draws a distinction between situations giving rise to the issuing of a residence card and situations in which that card is refused. While he believes a decision must be adopted and the card issued within the six-month period where the right of residence is established, he puts forward that the notification of a decision to refuse a residence card to a family member of a Union citizen may occur after the six-month period. In his opinion, this would not undermine the right to effective judicial protection since the time limit for lodging an appeal begins to run only once the decision has been notified.

Secondly, AG Bot argues that the wording and the spirit of Directive 2004/38 presuppose that the outcome of a request for a residence card must be founded on an extensive and individual examination of the individual’s situation. Therefore, he concludes that Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38 does not permit the consequence of exceeding the six-month period to be the automatic grant of the residence card, without it having been established that the applicant does in fact satisfy the conditions required to enjoy the right of residence.

For further information click here….

About the Author

Back to Top ↑