News

The Court of Justice of the European Union decided with its judgment from 18 June 2020 in the Ryanair case (C-754/18) that a family member of an EU citizen who is not a national of a Member State but who holds a permanent residence card shall be exempt from the visa requirement for entry into the territory of the Member States. Furthermore, this card is to be considered as proof, in itself, of the holder’s family member status.

For young, healthy men returning to the Kabul area and the city of Masar-e Sharif, the general living conditions in Afghanistan mean that there is regularly no danger of deportation even if they do not receive support from family or tribal members. Even the formal act of baptism and the membership in the Catholic Church which is based on this act alone does not lead to a ban on deportation. This was decided by the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate in Koblenz in its judgment of 22 January 2020 (file number: 13 A 11356/19.OVG).

On 23 June 2016, UK citizens voted to leave the EU. On 29 March 2017, the UK formally notified the European Council of its intention to leave the EU. On 17 October 2019, the European Council (Article 50) endorsed the withdrawal agreement as agreed by the negotiators of both sides. It also endorsed the revised political declaration on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship.

On March 28, 2019, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled that under European Union legislation a spouse from a third country that is married to an EU citizen has the right to reside in Germany and is entitled to the right of free movement even if they live separately from one another and the EU citizen temporarily returns to his/her country of origin (BVerwG 1 C 9.18).

The Higher Administrative Court of Hesse issued a ruling on 5 March 2018 (case no: 9 B 56/19) withdrawing the right to free movement for European Union workers from a Bulgarian national. The Court issued this ruling because an overall assessment of the objective circumstances in her case led it to believe that she did not comply with the intent of the freedom of movement regulations, even though she formally met the conditions set out under EU law. The court came to this conclusion because the Bulgarian had acted with the intention of benefiting from EU law by arbitrarily meeting the prerequisites for freedom of movement as a worker in order to obtain additional social security benefits.

The Court of Justice of the European Union decided on 26 March 2019 in its judgment in case C-129/18 (SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section) that a minor in the guardianship of a citizen of the EU under the Algerian kafala system cannot be regarded as a ‘direct descendant’ of that citizen. However, that citizen’s Member State of residence must facilitate, following an assessment, that minor’s entry to and residence in its territory.

On 12 September 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a recasting of the 2008 Return Directive, which stipulates common standards and procedures in Member States for returning irregular migrants who are non-EU nationals. Effectively returning irregular migrants is one of the key objectives of the European Union’s migration policy. However, Member States currently face challenges: national practices implementing the EU rules vary and the overall return rates remain below expectations. The proposal was not accompanied by a Commission impact assessment. The European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) therefore asked the European Parliamentary Research Service to provide a targeted substitute impact assessment of the proposed recast Return Directive.

In order for the United Kingdom (UK) to avoid a ‘hard’ Brexit, an interim agreement addressing, amongst other issues, the legal status of UK nationals living in other European Union (EU) countries as well as that of EU citizens living in the UK is required. The agreement must come into effect by 30 March 2019 unless the European Council, in agreement with the UK, unanimously agrees to extend this deadline in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Treaty on European Union. Otherwise, all agreements pertaining to the Union and to the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community will no longer have effect for the UK as of midnight (Brussels time) on 29 March 2019. After this deadline, the United Kingdom will be considered a third country, i.e. a non-member country. All agreements pertaining to overseas countries and territories that have special relations with the UK and to the European territories whose foreign affairs are overseen by the UK, and to which the agreements apply under Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, will no longer have effect.

The future of Germany as a business location depends to a large extent on how well it is possible to secure and expand the skilled labor base of companies and enterprises. Prosperity, the stability of social security systems and the associated social cohesion, as essential elements of the social market economy, are closely linked to the strength of the economy. The aim is to maintain and expand this strength in the future by providing good framework conditions and a forward-looking skilled workforce.

On 21 August 2018, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig decided that the deportation of a foreigner is not illegal even if a decision has not been previously made about how long the foreigner’s entry ban into Germany will last. The fact that a decision has not been made also does not prevent the government from imposing deportation costs on the foreigner concerned. Furthermore, the Federal Administrative Court clarified once again that under EU law, a ban on entry and residence always requires an official or judicial case-by-case decision and cannot be automatically imposed.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently ruled in the case Yön v. the Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart (City of Stuttgart, case no: C-123/17) that the introduction of a visa requirement for family members of employed Turkish workers who are already residing legally in Germany can be justified on the grounds of implementing effective immigration control and the need to manage migratory flows into Germany. In the court’s view, a visa requirement is justified as long as the process of obtaining one is proportionate to achieving the objective.

On 11 July 2018, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig issued a ruling (case no. BVerwG 1 C 18.17) concerning the right of asylum applicants to file legal actions to force The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) to make a decision about their asylum applications. The court determined that applicants may lodge an action against BAMF if a decision has not been made on their asylum application within three months. It also believed applicants have a legitimate interest in taking legal action for the sole purpose of obliging BAMF to make a decision on their applications.

The Federal Administrative Court issued a ruling in Leipzig on 12 July 2018 (Case no BVerwG 1 C 16.17) which addresses the issue of expelling foreigners who have committed crimes on grounds of general deterrence. According to German law, general deterrence can be used as a reason for justifying the government’s demand to expel a foreigner even under the new expulsion legislation in effect since 2016. The law stipulates that a residence permit normally cannot be granted if there is a public interest in expelling a foreigner.

Page 2 of 3
Aykut Elseven, Lawyer Aykut Elseven, Lawyer Send Us Your Request