About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2018-01 Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance 1 (2018)

handle is hein.intyb/rcbjcofi0399 and id is 1 raw text is: VRw Reports of Cases OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 13 December 2017' Case C-240/17 E (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland)) (Request for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Schengen area - Return decision and entry ban against a third-country national - Alert for the purposes of refusing entry in the Schengen Information System - Third-country national convicted of criminal offences - Third-country national with a valid residence permit in another Member State within the Schengen area - Obligation to consult - Effects of ongoing consultations on enforcement of the return decision and the coming into force of the entry ban - Article 25(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Directive 2008/115/EC) I. Introduction 1. Since 1985, the name of the commune of Schengen in Luxembourg has been synonymous with the vision of free travel in a Europe without internal border controls. In the great majority of European Union Member States and in several neighbouring third countries, which together constitute the Schengen area, this vision has now become a reality. Today, the Schengen system is one of the cornerstones of the European area of freedom, security and justice.2 2. However, in order to ensure that this system functions in the long term and continues to enjoy the greatest possible public acceptance, common rules which effectively and consistently ensure that greater freedom within this area without internal borders does not come at the cost of security are indispensable. This means that countries concerned must retain control over the entry and residence of third-country nationals without neglecting the requirements of EU law and the rights and interests of the individuals concerned. 3. It is the delicate balance between these aspects that the Court must consider when examining the request for a preliminary ruling before it in the present case. It is necessary to determine how to proceed when a third-country national who has a valid residence permit in a Member State within the Schengen area is also subject to an entry ban imposed by another Member State within the Schengen area. In the absence of internal border controls, such an entry ban has, in principle, a European dimension and is valid for the entire Schengen area, and even beyond that, for all Member States of the European Union. 1 Original language: German. 2 See in that regard Article 3(2) TEU and Article 67(2) TFEU, as well as Protocol No 19 to the TEU and to the TFEU (Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, OJ 2008 C 115, p. 290; this protocol dates back to the Treaty of Amsterdam). ECLJ:EU:C:2017:9631 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most