Judgment of the Court Grand Chamber of 7 September 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid Nature du droit de séjour au titre de l’article 20 TFUE, C-624/20

• Date: 07 September 2022
• Year: 2022

27

been taken. Therefore, a revocable decision to suspend the implementation of a transfer decision on

the ground that its implementation is materially impossible cannot be regarded as falling within that

framework. The fact that the material impossibility of enforcing a transfer decision may, under the

national law of the Member State concerned, mean that that decision is unlawful cannot call that

conclusion into question. First, the revocable nature of a decision to suspend the implementation of a

transfer decision prevents that suspension from being regarded as having been ordered pending a

ruling on the appeal against the transfer decision and with the aim of guaranteeing the judicial

protection of the person concerned as it cannot be excluded that the suspension may be revoked

before the appeal is decided. Secondly, it is clear from various provisions of the Dublin III Regulation

that the EU legislature did not consider that the material impossibility of implementing the transfer

decision should be regarded as justifying the interruption or suspension of the time limit for transfer.

2. IMMIGRATION POLICY

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2022, St aatssecretaris van Justitie

en Veiligheid (Nature du droit de séjour au titre de l’article 20 TFUE), C-624/20

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2003/109/EC – Status of third-country nationals who are

long-term residents – Scope – Third-country nati onal with a right of residence under Article 20 TFEU –

Article 3(2)(e) – Residence solely on temporary grounds – Autonomous concept of EU law

E. K., a Ghanaian national with a son of Netherlands nationality, obtained, in 2013, a residence permit

in the Netherlands under Article 20 TFEU, bearing the endorsement ‘family member of a Union

citizen’.

In 2019, she submitted an application for a long-term resident’s EU residence permit based on the

national legislation transposing Directive 2003/109.

63

Taking the view that the right of residence

under Article 20 TFEU was temporary, the Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (State Secretary

for Justice and Security, Netherlands) refused her application.

E. K. brought an action against that refusal decision before the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats

Amsterdam (District Court, The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam, Netherlands), which considered the

‘temporary’ nature of a right of residence obtained under Article 20 TFEU.

The Court, sitting as the Grand Chamber, holds that the concept of residence ‘solely on temporary

grounds’, within the meaning of Article 3(2)(e) of Directive 2003/109, does not cover the residence of a

third-country national under Article 20 TFEU within the territory of the Member State of which the

Union citizen concerned is a national and, therefore, that such residence is not excluded from the

scope of Directive 2003/109.

63

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term r esidents (OJ 2004

L 16, p. 44).