Rutili v Minister of the Interior

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Date: 28 October 1975
• Court: European Court of Justice

Court of Justice of the European Communities.

(Lecourt, President; Kutscher, President of Chamber; Donner, Mertens de Wilmars, Pescatore, Sørensen, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Judges; Mayras, Advocate-General.)

Rutili

and

Minister For The Interior

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — EEC Treaty — Direct effect in national law — Duty of national courts to give precedence to Community law — Duty of national courts to review decisions of national authorities to ensure compliance with Community law — The law of the European Communities

The individual in international law — In general — Position of individuals in International law — Human rights and freedoms — EEC Treaty — Right to freedom of movement conferred upon individuals — Provisions of EEC law a manifestation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights — The law of the European Communities

Treaties — Conclusion and operation — Operation and enforcement — Necessity for municipal legislation — EEC Treaty — Free movement of workers — Direct effect — The law of the European Communities

The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of aliens — Subjection to territorial sovereignty of the receiving State — Free movement of workers within the EEC — Restrictions on grounds of public policy — Conditions imposed by Community law on restrictions of movement for reasons of public policy — Whether applicable to decisions of national authorities in individual cases as well as to legislative measures — Circumstances in which restriction of movement justified — Respect for individual's rights — Substantive and procedural requirements — When State may restrict residence of national of another member State to a particular area — Treaties — Direct effect — The law of the European Communities

Summary: The facts:—The Tribunal administratif, Paris, here referred two questions for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Article 48 (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communities (EEC). In 1970, Rutili, the plaintiff before the Paris Tribunal administratif and an Italian national resident in France was issued with a residence permit of the kind granted to foreigners who were nationals of other EEC States by the defendant, the French Minister for the Interior. The permit prohibited Rutili from residing in certain administrative areas of France, including the place of his employment, because the Minister believed that the plaintiff might disturb “public policy” in those areas. Rutili argued, inter alia, that the restriction was contrary to the principles of the freedom of movement and residence of workers guaranteed by Article 48 of the EEC Treaty.1

The Tribunal administratif referred the case to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the following two questions:

• 1. Does the expression, “subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy”, employed in Article 48 of the Treaty establishing the EEC concern merely the legislative decisions which each Member State of the EEC has decided to take in order to limit within its territory the freedom of movement and residence for nationals of other Member States or does it also concern individual decisions taken in application of such legislative decisions?

• 2. What is the precise meaning to be attributed to the word “justified”?

Held:—(1) The provisions of Article 48 regarding permissible restrictions on the free movement of persons were applicable not only to legislative provisions of the member States but also to individual decisions taken pursuant to such legislation. The relevant provisions of Community law conferred rights directly upon nationals of member States, so that it was important that national courts, as well as giving precedence to those provisions over national legislation, exercised judicial review of decisions in individual cases to ensure that they complied with Community law. The requirement in Article 3 of Directive No. 64/221, that measures taken on grounds of public policy or security should be ‘based exclusively upon the personal conduct of the person concerned’, also pointed to the application of Community law to each individual decision.

(2) The term “justified” in Article 48 (3) meant that only limitations which complied with Community law as well as national law were permissible.

(a) In the context of freedom of movement, the rules of Community law were simply a specific manifestation of the general principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The concept of public policy had, therefore, to be given a strict interpretation. Restrictions on the movement of a national of another member State should be imposed only if his presence or conduct constituted a serious threat to public policy and not to service economic ends or to restrict the exercise of trade union rights.

(b) The limitations must comply with procedural safeguards of the individual's right to be heard and to be informed, unless this would endanger the security of the State, of the grounds on which his movement is being or may be restricted.

(c) Prohibitions on residence under Article 48 (3) had to apply to the whole territory of the State concerned. A State could only prohibit a national of

another member State from residing in a particular area in circumstances in which it could impose a similar prohibition on one of its own nationals.

The text of the opinion of the Advocate-General Mayras commences on p. 408, below. The following is the text2 of the judgment of the Court:

Facts

The facts of the case, the procedure and the observation submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC may be summarized as follows:

I—Facts and written procedure

Mr Roland Rutili, of Italian nationality, was born on 27 April 1940 in Loudun (Vienne), and has been resident in France since his birth; he is married to a Frenchwoman and was, until 1968, the holder of a privileged resident's permit and domiciled at Audun-le-Tiche (in the department of Meurthe-et-Moselle), where he worked and engaged in trade union activities.

On 12 August 1968, the Ministry for the Interior made a deportation order against him.

On 10 September 1968 an order was issued requiring him to reside in the department of Puy-de-Dôme.

By orders of 19 November 1968 the Minister for the Interior revoked the deportation and residence orders affecting Mr Rutili and, on the same date, informed the Prefect of the Moselle of his decision to prohibit Mr Rutili from residing in the departments of Moselle, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse and Vosges.

On 17 January 1970 Mr Rutili applied for the grant of a residence permit for a national of a Member State of the EEC.

On 9 July 1970 he appealed to the Tribunal administratif, Paris, against the implied decision refusing him this document.

On 23 October 1970, the Prefect of Police, acting on instructions given by the Minister for the Interior on 17 July, granted Mr Rutili a residence permit for a national of a Member State of the EEC, which was valid until 22 October 1975 but subject to a prohibition on residence in the departments of Moselle, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse and Vosges.

On 16 December 1970, Mr Rutili brought proceedings before the Tribunal administratif, Paris, for annulment of the decision limiting the territorial validity of his residence permit.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal administratif, it became apparent that Mr Rutili's presence in the departments of Lorraine was considered by the Minister for the Interior to be “likely to disturb public policy”and that there were complaints against him in respect of certain activities, the truth of which is, however, contested, which are alleged to consist, in essence, in political actions during the parliamentary elections in March 1967 and the events of May and June 1968 and in his participation in a demonstration during the celebrations on 14 July 1968 at Audun-le-Tiche.

By judgment of 16 December 1974, the Tribunal administratif, Paris, decided to stay proceedings under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty until the Court of Justice had given a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

• 1. Does the expression, “subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy”, employed in Article 48 of the Treaty establishing the EEC concern merely the legislative decisions which each Member State of the EEC has decided to take in order to limit within its territory the freedom of movement and residence for nationals of other Member States or does it also concern individual decisions taken in application of such legislative decisions?

• 2. What is the precise meaning to be attributed to the word “justified”?

The decision of the Tribunal administratif, Paris was entered at the Court Registry on 9 April 1975.

Written observations under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC were submitted on 16 June 1975 by the Commission of the European Communities, on 20 June by the Government of the French Republic and on 26 June by the Government of the Italian Republic.

After hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate-General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

On 2 September 1975, the Government of the French Republic supplied to the Court at the request of the latter certain details of the substantive and procedural conditions in which a prohibition on residence in part of the national territory may be issued against a French national.

II—Written observations submitted to the Court

A—The first question

The Government of the French Republic takes the view that this question is answered by Council Directive No 64/221 of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health...