Important case of the CJEU concerning the prohibition of entry into the territory of a non-EU citizen and family reunification
In a decision of May 8, 2018 (CJEU May 8, 2018, aff C-82/16) the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that applications for family reunification must be examined even if the non-European citizen, member of the family of an EU citizen, received a "ban on entry into the territory”
In the facts
Several non-European citizens residing in Belgium had received a decision to return to their country, accompanied by a ban on entry into Belgium. This ban was issued for reasons of danger to public order.
Subsequently, they had applied for a residence permit from the Belgian Government in their capacity, for some, as descendants of a Belgian national, for others as parents of a Belgian child, and for and finally, legal cohabiting partner engaged in a stable relationship with a Belgian national. These qualities generate a relationship of dependency that can allow the grant of family reunification. But the Belgian authorities have not taken their request into consideration, prioritizing the entry ban, which can only be removed if a cancellation request is made from abroad.
However, the Aliens Litigation Council found that these people were well established in Belgium. Thus, it asked the Court of Justice of the European Union what it should do with these contentious cases.
The decision of the Court
The Court states that it is a special situation. The persons in question would have to leave the territory of the Union to request an application for the annulment of the entry ban in Belgium.
In addition, the family dependency of the non-EU citizen with an EU citizen would force this EU citizen to leave the EU territory for an indefinite period. This fact could "compromise the useful effect of Union citizenship".
In conclusion, the reasons of public policy which justified a referral decision cannot lead to an automatic refusal to grant family reunification. The services must examine if the person presents "a real, current and sufficiently serious threat to public order" and take into consideration all the circumstances, the best interests of the child and the fundamental rights.