CJEU - C-257/17, C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

With regards to the first question, the Court first points out that the (Family Reunion) Directive 2003/86  is not intended to apply to a third country national family member of an EU citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement.

However, it is clear from previous CJEU case law that the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on questions concerning provisions of EU law in situations in which, even if the facts of the case in the main proceedings do not fall directly within the field of application of EU law, provisions of EU law have been rendered applicable by domestic law due to a renvoi made by that law to the content of those provisions.

In this case, the national Dutch law made Directive 2003/86 directly and unconditionally applicable to situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings and that it is therefore clearly in the interest of the European Union that the Court rule on the request for a preliminary ruling.

In answer to the second question, the Court first found, by reading Article 15(1) and 15(4) together, that although issuing an autonomous residence permit is, in principle, an entitlement arising from five years of residence in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, the EU legislature nevertheless authorised the Member States to subject the grant of such a permit to certain conditions, which it left to be defined by the Member States.

This may take the form of a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State. However, this examination cannot legitimately go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals. In its consideration on the need for proportionality, the Court largely relied on its previous judgment in case C-153/14 (K & A), adding that the national court must ensure that the knowledge requirements and cost of the exam are not unreasonably high, effectively preventing willing applicants from succeeding. Moreover, individual circumstances, such as age, level of education, health and financial situation, should also be taken into account, leading the authorities to provide for exemption from the examination requirement when needed.

Finally, the Court looked at the third question. First, the Court notes that Article 15 does not contain any specific rules relating to the progression of the procedure for granting an autonomous residence permit or to the date from which a permit issued must take effect. It follows from Article 15(4) that it is for the Member States to lay down the conditions relating to the granting of an autonomous residence permit, which may, inter alia, include procedural conditions circumscribing the grant of that permit.

Therfore, Articles 15(1) and (4) do not preclude national legislation that provides that an autonomous residence permit cannot be issued earlier than the date on which it was applied for.