Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0806

Case C-806/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 December 2018 — JZ

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.4.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 December 2018 — JZ

(Case C-806/18)

(2019/C 122/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: JZ

Question referred

Is the criminalisation under national law which criminalises the stay of a third-country national in the territory of the Netherlands after an entry ban has been imposed on him pursuant to Article 66a(7) of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 compatible with EU law, in particular with the finding of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment of 26 July 2017, Ouhrami v Netherlands (C-225/16, EU:C:2017:590, paragraph 49) according to which the entry ban provided for in Article 11 of the Return Directive (1) produces its ‘effects’ only from the point in time the foreign national has returned to his country of origin or to another third country, when national law also holds that that foreign national has no lawful residence and moreover it is established that the steps of the return procedure set out in the Return Directive have been followed but the actual return has not taken place?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


Top
  翻译: