Chavez-Vilchez (C-133/15)

Last updated

Chavez-Vilchez
European stars.svg
Submitted 18 March 2015
Decided 10 May 2017
Full case name H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others.
CaseC-133/15
CelexID 62015CJ0133
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:2017:354
Case typeReference for a preliminary ruling
ChamberFull chamber
Nationality of partiesThe Netherlands
Procedural historyCentrale Raad van Beroep ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:665
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
Allan Rosas
President
Koen Lenaerts
Advocate General
Maciej Szpunar
Legislation affecting
Interprets article 20 TFEU

H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others (2017) C-133/15 (known as the Chavez-Vilchez ruling) [1] was a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upon a request for a preliminary ruling, referred to the ECJ by the (Dutch) Centrale Raad van Beroep. [2] The questions submitted concerned the conditions under which a parent who is not a national of a Member State of the European Union can derive a right of residence from the fact that his/her child is a national of a Member State.

Contents

Facts

The judgment discusses eight disputes in the main proceedings. One of them concerns Mrs. Chavez-Vilchez. She is a Venezuelan national who came to the Netherlands in 2007/2008 on a tourist visa. Her relationship with a Netherlands national led, on 30 March 2009, to the birth of a child who has Netherlands nationality. Ms Chavez-Vilchez had legal custody of her child. She was responsible for the care of her child and had stated that the father did not contribute to the child's support or upbringing. [1] :par. 21

The other seven cases were similar. [1] :par. 22 - 28

The Centrale Raad van Beroep had to decide whether these mothers/third-country nationals had the right of residence in the Netherlands.

Questions referred

The Centrale Raad van Beroep referred to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling: [1] :par. 39

  1. Must Article 20 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from depriving a third-country national who is responsible for the day-to-day and primary care of his/her minor child, who is a national of that Member State, of the right of residence in that Member State?
  2. In answering that question, is it relevant that it is that parent on whom the child is entirely dependent, legally, financial and/or emotionally and, furthermore, that it cannot be excluded that the other parent, who is a national of the Member State, might in fact be able to care for the child?
  3. In that case, should the parent/third-country national have to make a plausible case that the other parent is not able to assume responsibility for the care of the child, so that the child would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union if the parent/third-country national is denied a right of residence?

Judgment

In answer to the first two questions referred — examined together — the Court ruled:

  • Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of assessing whether a child who is a citizen of the European Union would be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and thereby deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by that article if the child’s third-country national parent were refused a right of residence in the Member State concerned, the fact that the other parent, who is a Union citizen, is actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is a relevant factor, but it is not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there is not, between the third-country national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would indeed be so compelled were there to be such a refusal of a right of residence.
  • Such an assessment must take into account, in the best interests of the child concerned, all the specific circumstances, including the age of the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties both to the Union citizen parent and to the third-country national parent, and the risks which separation from the latter might entail for the child’s equilibrium.

In answer to the third question referred, the Court ruled:

  • Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing that the right of residence in its territory of a third-country national, who is a parent of a minor child that is a national of that Member State and who is responsible for the primary day-to-day care of that child, is subject to the requirement that the third-country national must provide evidence to prove that a refusal of a right of residence to the third-country national parent would deprive the child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights pertaining to the child’s status as a Union citizen, by obliging the child to leave the territory of the European Union, as a whole.
  • It is however for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to undertake, on the basis of the evidence provided by the third-country national, the necessary enquiries in order to be able to assess, in the light of all the specific circumstances, whether a refusal would have such consequences.

Significance

Can a third-country national who is the custodial parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen stay with his child if the child would otherwise have to leave the European Union?

After the Ruiz Zambrano judgment [3] this was not automatically the case in the Netherlands. The Ruiz Zambrano judgment was interpreted restrictively. In many cases one of the parents was a Union citizen, and then that parent was supposed to take care of the child, even if they (that is, the Union citizen) were not able or willing to do so. The 'third-country national' (the parent who was not a citizen of the Union) could then still be denied the right of residence.

The Chavez-Vilchez judgment specified more explicitly the conditions under which a third-country national can derive a right of residence from Article 20 TFEU when he/she has the day-to-day care of a Union citizen. [4] The interests of the child were paramount: when assessing the right of residence of the third-country national, all circumstances of the case must be taken into account, including the relationship of dependency on the child. [6] More specifically, it cannot be assumed without justification that the child/Union citizen can be cared for by the 'other parent' lawfully residing in the European Union. [7] [8]

Other cases

The Chavez-Vilchez judgment has led to further preliminary questions from the Netherlands:

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017. H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others., ECLI:EU:C:2017:354
  2. ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:665 (in Dutch). The Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Board of Appeal) is the highest administrative court that deals with appeals related to social security and civil service matters.
  3. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011. Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm). Case C‑34/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124
  4. Kroeze 2017, p. 485.
  5. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2022. Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo v XU and QP. Joined Cases C-451/19 and C-532/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:354
  6. In a ruling of 5 May 2022, the Court ruled that the relationship of dependency is already presumed when the third-country national lives together permanently with the other parent, who is a Union citizen, and they have joint custody of the child. [5]
  7. Haag 2017.
  8. Migration Law Clinic 2020.
  9. Rechtbank Den Haag (zp. Utrecht) 10 September 2020, AWB 19/5840, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:9077 (in Dutch)
  10. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 22 June 2023. X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, Case C-459/20, ECLI:EU:C:2023:499
  11. Other advantages are excluded, see ABRvS 28 April 2021, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:921, sub 3.4 (in Dutch)
  12. In the Netherlands only a non-temporary right of residence can be promoted —after some time— to a permanent right of residence. [11]
  13. Rechtbank Den Haag (zp. Amsterdam), 24 November 2020, AWB 20/172, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:11785 (in Dutch)
  14. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 7 September 2022, E.K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, Case C-624/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:639
  15. Migration Law Clinic 2021.
  16. Migration Law Clinic 2022.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Justice</span> Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.

<i>R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport</i> UK-Spanish legal case

R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union citizenship</span> Legal right conferred to citizens of EU member states

European Union citizenship is afforded to all nationals of member states of the European Union (EU). It was formally created with the adoption of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the creation of the EU. EU citizenship is additional to, as it does not replace, national citizenship. It affords EU citizens with rights, freedoms and legal protections available under EU law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European single market</span> Single market of the European Union and participating non-EU countries

The European single market, also known as the European internal market or the European common market, is the single market comprising mainly the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). With certain exceptions, it also comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms". This is achieved through common rules and standards that all participating states are legally committed to follow.

Chen v Home Secretary was a decision of the European Court of Justice which decided that a minor who is a national of a European Union member state has the right to reside in the European Union with his or her third-country national parents, provided the minor and parents have health insurance and will not become a burden on the public finances of the member state of residence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swedish nationality law</span> History and regulations of Swedish citizenship

Swedish nationality law determines entitlement to Swedish citizenship. Citizenship of Sweden is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis. In other words, citizenship is conferred primarily by birth to a Swedish parent, irrespective of place of birth.

The freedom of movement for workers is a policy chapter of the acquis communautaire of the European Union. The free movement of workers means that nationals of any member state of the European Union can take up an employment in another member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that particular member state. In particular, no discrimination based on nationality is allowed. It is part of the free movement of persons and one of the four economic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Article 45 TFEU states that:

  1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
  2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
  3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
  4. The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Family reunification is a recognized reason for immigration in many countries because of the presence of one or more family members in a certain country, therefore, enables the rest of the divided family or only specific members of the family to emigrate to that country as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latvian nationality law</span> History and regulations of Latvian citizenship

The Latvian nationality law is based on the Citizenship Law of 1994. Before 2020, it was primarily based on jus sanguinis.

Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2008) C-127/08 is a European Union law case, significant in Ireland and Denmark, on the Citizens Rights Directive and family unification rules for migrant citizens. Citizenship of the European Union was established by Article 20 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 elaborates the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a member state, consolidating previous Directives dealing with the right to move and reside within the European Community (EC).

Françoise Gravier v City of Liège (C-293/83) was an important freedom of movement case in European law concerning non-discrimination in access to vocational education. It held that an education institution may not discriminate against students in terms of the fees they charge on grounds of nationality.

The Amsterdam sex crimes case is a court case involving Robert Mikelson's abuse of babies in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The defendant was Roberts Mikelson, dubbed "the Monster of Riga" by the Dutch press, who had worked at several daycare centres in Amsterdam and was accused of abusing 87 children as well as possession, production and distribution of child pornography. Mikelson was found guilty and sentenced to 18 years and 11 months in prison, followed by involuntary commitment.

The European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) is an identifier for court decisions in Europe. The identifier consists of five elements separated by colons: ECLI:[country code]:[court identifier]:[year of decision]:[specific identifier]. The standard is laid down in the Council Conclusions inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law of the European Union. The ECLI framework also contains a set of uniform metadata to improve search facilities for case law. Court decisions that have an ECLI assigned can be indexed by the ECLI Search Engine of the European e-Justice portal.

<i>Deckmyn v Vandersteen</i> European court ruling on copyright

Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW vs Helena Vandersteen, Christiane Vandersteen, Liliana Vandersteen, Isabelle Vandersteen, Rita Dupont, Amoras II CVOH and WPG Uitgevers België is a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice. The reference concerned what conditions must be met for a derivative work to be considered a parody. Parodies are allowed under the Information Society Directive, in those countries that have indicated to apply the parody exception. The European Court of Justice indicated that the definition of the copyright exceptions was consistent throughout the EU and that to qualify the work must "evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery". The humour or mockery does not need to be directed towards the work itself, but it can also be mockery of something/someone else. When considering a parody-case the court should strike a fair balance between the rights of the rights holders of the original work, as the maker of the parody.

Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (2007) C-213/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.

R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, SS for Education and Skills is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.

Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.

Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne is a 2018 case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that affirmed residency rights in EU countries, to the spouse of an EU citizen who is exercising their right to freedom of movement and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.

In EU law, reverse discrimination occurs when the national law of a member state of the European Union provides for less favourable treatment of its citizens or domestic products than other EU citizens/goods under EU law. Since the creation of the Single Market, the right of EU citizens to move freely within the EU with their families. The right to free movement was codified in EU Directive 2004/38/EC which applies across the whole EEA. However, reverse discrimination is permitted in EU law because of the legal principle of subsidiarity, i.e. EU law is not applicable in situations purely internal to one member state. This rule of purely internal situation does not apply if the EU citizens can provide a cross-border link, e.g. by travel or by holding dual EU citizenship. EU citizens and their families have an automatic right of entry and residence in all EU countries except their own, with exceptions created by a cross-EU state border link. For example, an Irish citizen living in Germany with his family before returning to Ireland can apply for EU family rights. This is referred to as the Surinder Singh route. The cross-border dimension has been the focus of many court cases in recent years, from McCarthy to Zambrano.

References