Административен съд, София град
National case details
Instance: Appellate on fact and law
Case status: Final
Area of law
Identification of the case
- Freedom of movement and of residence (art. 45 CFREU)
- Act of the Republic of Bulgaria on the entry, stay and departure of the UE citizens and their family members
- Article 10 Directive 2004/38/EC
Summary of the case
The case started with the complaint of H. J., an Iranian citizen, against the refusal of the Director of GDBP to issuing a long-term residence card as a family member of a European Union citizen.
H. J. has applied for issuing of a long-term residence card as a family member of a European Union citizen according to the Act on the entry, stay and departure of the Republic of Bulgaria of the citizens of the European Union and their family members. With the application were produced: a copy of the passport issued by the competent Iranian authorities to H. D. J., a citizen of the Republic of Iran, a copy of a long-stay issued to J. R., a British national, a declaration by J. R., that he will provide support and housing for his parents and the birth certificate of J. R., which stated that his father was H. J.
The Director of GDBP refused to issue the applied card, because H. J. has applied at the same time also for international protection.
- Administrative judicial enforcement
The Court has annulled the contested refusal and returned the case for a new ruling on the application with an indication of issuing of the applied card.
Pursuant Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the right of residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State is proved by the issuing of a document known as the 'Residence Card of a family member of a citizen of the European Union', no later than six months from the date of filing of the application. A certificate that the person is applying for a residence card must be issued immediately. The Directive does not lay down any additional requirements as the fact that the applicant has exercised his right to free movement or that he is accompanying or joining a citizen of the European Union. The only relevant element is that the applicant is a family member of a EU citizen.
In the considered case is undoubted that H. J. is a member of the family of a EU citizen.
One of the fundamental principles of the EU law is its primacy over the national laws that contradict it. In relation to the above mentioned findings, the Court founded that in this case the rule of Art. 10 of Directive 2004/38 EC is directly applicable. The administrative authority had the duty to issue a provisonal certificate and to verify the documents producted according to Article 10 , Point 2 of Directive 2004/38 in order to issue the requested card and not a residence permit. The certificate attesting that the person has applied for a residence card (provisional certificate) should have been issued immediately. The issuing of both of the documents is not regarded with any protection procedure opened by the individual.
Role of the Charter and role of the general principles on enforcement
The judgment of the Court ricognises the right of the citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as provided by Aricle 10 Directive 2004/38/CE and by Article 45 CFREU. Pursuant the foundamental principle of primacy of EU law over national legislations, the Court expressly finds that in this case the rule of Art. 10 is directly applicable.