Elestina Morson and Sewradjie Jhanjan v. State of the Netherlands. (Cases 35-36/82) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (The President, Mertens de Wilmars C.J.; O'Keeffe and Everling PP.C.; Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Bosco and Koopmans JJ.) Sir Gordon Slynn Advocate General. 27 October 1982 Reference from the Netherlands by the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) under Article 177 EEC. National courts. Interlocutory proceedings. Reference under Article 177. A national court of last resort under Article 177(3) EEC is not required to refer to the European Court of Justice a question of interpretation under Article 177(1) if the question is raised in interlocutory proceedings and the decision to be taken is not binding on the court which later has to deal with the substance of the case, provided that either party is entitled to institute proceedings on the substance of the case even before the courts of another jurisdictional system (e.g. administrative tribunals) and that during such proceedings any question of Community law provisionally decided at the interlocutory stage may be reexamined and be referred to the European Court under Article 177. [10] Aliens. Reverse discrimination. Nationality. The EEC Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for workers cannot be applied to cases which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by Community law. That is the case with workers who have never exercised the right to free movement within the Community. Consequently, a member-state is not prevented by EEC law from refusing entry to or stay on its
territory to an alien (non-member State) parent of a local national who has never been employed in another member-state. [18] The Court interpreted Article 177(3) EEC and Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68 in the context of two Surinam mothers who wished to live with their Dutch children in the Netherlands but who were threatened with expulsion, their children being employed in the Netherlands but never having been employed in another member-state, to the effect that the EEC provisions on free movement*222 of workers did not apply to workers who had always lived and worked in their own country and the non-member State parents could therefore lawfully be expelled. Representation B. R. Angad-Gaur, of the Hague Bar, for the applicants. J. W. de Zwaan, assisted by L. A. Geelhoed, as expert witness, for the Dutch Government. J. Amphoux, Legal Adviser to the E.C. Commission, with him F. Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, for the Commission as amicus curiae. A written amicus brief was also submitted by the United Kingdom Government. The following case was referred to by the Court in its judgment: 1. Hoffmann-la Roche AG v. Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse mbh (107/76), 24 May 1977 : [1977] E.C.R. 957, [1977] 2 C.M.L.R. 334. The following further cases were referred to by the Advocate General: 2. Kermaschek v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (40/76), 23 November 1976: [1976] E.C.R. 1669. 3. Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (115/78), 7 February 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 357. 4. Regina v. Saunders (175/78), 28 March 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 1129, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 216. 5. Broekmeulen v. Huisarts Registratie Commissie (246/80), 6 October 1981: [1981] E.C.R. 2311, [1982] 1 C.M.L.R. 91. TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE Facts The applicants in the main proceedings, Mrs. Morson and Mrs. Jhanjan, who are nationals of Surinam, applied for permission to reside in the Netherlands in order to stay in that country with their daughter and son respectively, who are Dutch nationals of whom they are dependants. Their applications were refused by the Staats-secretaris van Justitie (Secretary of State for Justice) whereupon they
requested a review of the decisions refusing their applications. By virtue of section 32 of the Vreemdelingenwet (Aliens Act) applications for review as a general rule suspend deportation orders. However, the Secretary of State for Justice may refuse to give such applications suspensory effect in which case an interlocutory application*223 may be made to the court or judge ordinarily having jurisdiction which, in this case, was the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court). The relevant interlocutory proceedings are governed by sections 289 to 297 of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure), section 292 of which provides that 'provisionally enforceable decisions shall be without prejudice to the main proceedings.' The applicants adopted that means of legal redress by applying for an interlocutory injunction restraining the State of the Netherlands from deporting them at least until their applications for review had been decided at the highest instance or the Court of Justice had given a preliminary ruling on certain questions. In their interlocutory applications they claimed that the refusal to grant them residence permits was contrary to Article 10 of Council Regulation 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and the prohibition of discrimination contained in Article 7 of the Treaty. Under Article 10(1) of that regulation certain members of the family of a worker, including dependent relatives in the ascending line, have the right, irrespective of their nationality, to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one member- State and who is employed in the territory of another member-state. The President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank dismissed their interlocutory applications and the Gerechtshof (Court of Appeal) Amsterdam upheld his decisions; the applicants then appealed on a point of law to the Hoge Raad, which, by judgments of 15 January 1982, stayed the proceedings and pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty referred to the Court the following questions which are the same in both cases: 1.On an application for an interlocutory injunction, is the Hoge Raad obliged, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, when a question of interpretation within the meaning of the first paragraph of that Article is raised in an appeal on a point of law, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, having regard to the fact that a judgment of the Hoge Raad delivered on an application for an interlocutory injunction is not binding on a court which later has to try the case on its merits? If this question cannot be answered generally in the negative or affirmative, what are the circumstances which determine whether such an obligation should be deemed to exist? 2.Does Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, whether or not in conjunction with other provisions of Community law, prevent a member-state from refusing to admit a relative mentioned in Article 10(1) of the regulation, of a worker employed within the territory of that member-state, where the relative wishes to take up residence there with that worker, if the worker has the
nationality of the State in which he works and the relative has another nationality? *224 Opinion of the Advocate General (Sir Gordon Slynn) The Dutch Supreme Court has, in two cases pending before it, referred to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty the following questions: [The Advocate General repeated the questions, and continued:] The questions arise in this way. The appellants in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, Mrs. Morson in Case 35/82 and Mrs. Jhanjan in Case 36/82, are nationals of Surinam. As they were living there on 25 November 1975, they lost their Dutch nationality pursuant to an agreement made between the Netherlands and Surinam which came into effect on that date, consequent on the latter's independence. They came to the Netherlands, apparently as tourists, Mrs. Morson on 27 September 1978 and Mrs. Jhanjan in May 1980. Mrs. Morson went to live with her daughter who, according to the Order for Reference, is a Dutch national living and working in Amsterdam; Mrs. Jhanjan went to live with her son, also of Dutch nationality. Subsequently both applied for a residence permit, arguing that they were dependents of their children. The Secretary of State refused both applications and they became liable to deportation. It seems that, under Dutch law, the court competent to review the Secretary of State's decision is the Raad van State but that, even when proceedings are brought before it, the effect of the deportation order would not be suspended by the Secretary of State or the Raad van State pending the review. Mrs. Morson and Mrs. Jhanjan would therefore remain liable to deportation. In consequence both applied to the President of the local Arrondissementsrechtbank for an order restraining the Netherlands from deporting them. The President has a general power to grant interlocutory or interim relief where there is urgency but his decision is provisional and cannot decide the dispute between the parties or prejudge the eventual decision on the substance of the case before the Raad van State. In the event, the Presidents refused to make the orders sought and appeals were made first to the local Gerechtshof and then to the Supreme Court which made the Orders for Reference. At the hearing the Court was told that proceedings had since been begun before the Raad van State but that Mrs. Jhanjan had in the meantime been deported to Surinam. Mrs. Morson was, it was thought, still in the Netherlands, but the police had been unable to find her. The point raised in the first question referred was considered by the Court in Case 107/76, Hoffmann-la-Roche v. Centrafarm. [FN1] There the Court held: FN1 [1977] E.C.R. 957, [1977] 2 C.M.L.R. 334. 'The third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal is not required to refer to the Court a question of interpretation or of validity mentioned in that Article when the question is raised in interlocutory*225 proceedings for an interim order..., even where no judicial remedy is available against the decision to be taken in the
context of those proceedings, provided that each of the parties is entitled to institute proceedings or to require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case and that during such proceedings the question provisionally decided in the summary proceedings may be re-examined and may be the subject of a reference to the Court under Article 177.' The only real difference between these cases and Hoffmann-Laroche v. Centrafarm seems to be that, here, jurisdiction to grant interlocutory or interim relief lies with the civil courts while jurisdiction to decide the substance of the case lies with the Raad van State. This does not seem to me to require a distinction to be drawn between these cases and the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche. Counsel for the Commission submitted that the obligation to refer may still exist where the object of the summary proceedings is to uphold a right under Community law which would be lost irretrievably if the request for relief were rejected. That seems to follow from the formulation of the Court's judgment. The essential criterion as to whether there is an obligation to refer is whether the question of Community law can effectively be re-examined in proceedings on the substance of the case. If it can, there is no obligation to refer. If it cannot because, for example, the applicant is disqualified from instituting proceedings on the substance of the case, or the question of law does not arise on the substance of the case, or because events have or will have made a decision on the question wholly academic or pointless, then the question must be referred. The decision in the summary proceedings in the latter situations is in a real sense one against which there is no judicial remedy for the purposes of Article 177(3) of the EEC Treaty. The second question is put in broad terms which go beyond the facts of the present case. It asks in effect whether a relative within the defined category can, as a matter of Community law, assert a right to entry into a member-state where the related worker is employed in that State and has the nationality of that State, but the relative has a different nationality. The fact that the relative has a different nationality, whether or not that of another member-state, is no bar to entry. Article 10(1) of Regulation 1612/68 clears confers the right 'irrespective of nationality.' Nor does it seem to me to matter that, as here, the applicants were neither resident in nor employed in any member-state. The rights of relatives of the appropriate class derive from their connection with a person who is a worker upon whom rights are conferred by e.g. Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty and secondary legislation, and are intended to give real effect to those rights (see e.g. Case 40/76 Kermaschek v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit [FN2] dealing with Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971). FN2 [1976] E.C.R. 1669. *226 It seems now to be established that a worker may assert rights under Community law against his own member-state (see e.g.case 115/78Knoors v. Secretary of State [FN3]; Case 175/78 R. v. Saunders [FN4] and Case 246/80 Broekmeulen v. Huisarts Registratie Commissie [FN5]). Derived rights may in
appropriate circumstances equally be enforced under Community law against that member-state. It does not, however, follow that the mere fact that a person lives and works in the member-state of which he is a national is sufficient of itself under Community law to give him the right against the member-state to bring his relatives in, or them the right to enter. He and they can only assert such rights in the situations covered by the provisions of Community law: otherwise his and their rights depend on national law. FN3 [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 357. FN4 [1979] E.C.R. 1129, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 216. FN5 [1981] E.C.R. 2311, [1982] 1 C.M.L.R. 91. Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68 confers rights only where a worker who is a national of one member-state is employed in the territory of another member- State. This provision is, as I see it, primarily intended to cover the situation where a worker moves his house to take up employment in another member-state. Otherwise, if he could not take his family to his new home, freedom of movement under Article 48 would not be achieved in any real sense. Ex facie it also covers the worker who does not move his home, but is merely employed in another member-state. His relative can under Community law assert a right to be installed with him against his member-state. What is common to both situations is that two member-states are involved: one of nationality and one of employment. Whether, as I understand the Commission to argue, it follows that an individual employed in a member-state of which he is not a national, can assert a right to go back to his member-state, and whether in consequence his relatives can assert a right under Community law, in particular under Article 10 to go and be installed with him there, is in my view a more difficult question which does not arise in this case and on which it is neither necessary nor desirable to comment. It is contended that this requirement of two member-states is erroneous and that Article 10 must be interpreted quite generally so that it covers the worker employed in the State of which he is a national and who has not moved either his home or his employment. Reliance is placed first on Article 11 of the same regulation which, in the French and some other texts, gives to certain relatives of a national of one member-state 'xer6cant sur le territoire d'un Etat membre une activite salariee ou non salariee' the right to take up employment in the same member-state. Whether, as is expressly stated in the English text ('another member-state') and as I understand*227 it in the Danish text, [FN6] 'un Etat membre' is to be construed in the light of Article 10 as 'un autre Etat membre' does not fall for decision. The argument that Article 11 should be construed in the light of Article 10 seems to me if anything stronger than the converse argument. In any event no rights are claimed under Article 11 in the present case. Reliance is also placed on the Court's decision in the Knoors case. That case, however, fell under Article 52 of the Treaty and dealt with the situation where a Dutch
national who had qualified as a plumber in Belgium wished to move back to carry on his trade in the Netherlands. The Court's decision may be very relevant to the Commission's argument that a family has the right to return with a worker who goes back to his own member-state to work. It does not seem to me to have any bearing on a case where no movement between states has occurred, and indeed the Court pointed out that member-states have a legitimate interest in preventing their nationals from wrongly evading the application of national law by means of the facilities brought into being by the Treaty. FN6 'En Anden Medlemsstats Omrade.' In the present case there is no suggestion or indication that the workers in question have ever exercised or sought or intended to assert their rights under the Treaty. They have not been employed in another member-state. Accordingly it seems to me that their relatives cannot say that they have any rights under Community law to install themselves with their children. This it is said causes incongruous results if a non-national can come in with his family, or if, as the Commission contend, a national can come back with his family, but a national cannot bring in his family to join him in the place where he has always been. Since the rights conferred derive from the principle of a freedom of movement for workers, and not from a right of residence, throughout the Community, gaps in the right of a family to live with an individual are at the least possible and perhaps inevitable. My conclusion is accordingly that the two questions should be answered on the following lines: 1. The third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to refer to the Court a question of interpretation mentioned in that Article when the question is raised in proceedings for an interlocutory injunction, even when no judicial remedy is available against any decision to be taken in those proceedings, provided that each of the parties is entitled to institute proceedings or to require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case even if before a different court or tribunal, and that during such proceedings the question provisionally decided may*228 effectively be re-examined and may be the subject of a reference to the Court under Article 177. 2. Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 in conjunction with Article 48 of the Treaty is to be interpreted to the effect that a member-state is not prevented under Community law from refusing to admit a relative, mentioned in Article 10(1) of that regulation, of a worker employed within the territory and having the nationality of that member-state where the relative is of a different nationality and wishes to install himself with that worker, in a situation where the worker is not employed and has not been employed in the territory of another member-state. JUDGMENT
[1] By judgments dated 15 January 1982 which were received at the Court on 21 January 1982 the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions, which are the same in both joined cases, as to the interpretation of, first, the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty and, secondly, Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. [2] The applicants in the main proceedings, Mrs. Morson and Mrs. Jhanjan, who are nationals of Surinam, applied for permission to reside in the Netherlands in order to take up residence with their daughter and son respectively, who are Dutch nationals of whom they are dependants. According to the papers before the Court the daughter and son hold employment in the Netherlands but have never been employed in another member-state. Their applications were refused by the Secretary of State for Justice whereupon Mrs. Morson and Mrs. Jhanjan lodged with him requests for review. [3] As a general rule under Dutch legislation on aliens such applications for review suspend deportation orders. However, the Secretary of State for Justice may refuse to give such applications suspensory effect in which case an interlocutory application may be made to the court or judge ordinarily having jurisdiction. The relevant interlocutory proceedings are governed by sections 289 to 297 of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure), section 292 of which provides that 'provisionally enforceable decisions shall be without prejudice to the main proceedings.' [4] In this case the applicants in the main proceedings sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the Dutch State from deporting them at least until their application for review had been decided at the highest instance. They relied on Article 10(1) of Regulation 1612/68, cited above, which gives certain members of a worker's family, including dependent relatives in the ascending line, the right*229 to install themselves with the worker if he is a national of one member- State and employed within the territory of another member-state. They also relied on the prohibition of discrimination embodied in Articles 7 and 48 of the EEC Treaty. [5] The Hoge Raad, with which Mrs. Morson and Mrs. Jhanjan lodged appeals on a point of law in the interlocutory proceedings, considered that the decision to be given depended on the interpretation of provisions of Community law and submitted the following questions for a preliminary ruling: 1. On an application for an interlocutory injunction, is the Hoge Raad obliged, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, when a question of interpretation within the meaning of the first paragraph of that Article is raised in an appeal on a point of law, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, having regard to the fact that a judgment of the Hoge Raad delivered on an application for an interlocutory injunction is not binding on a court which later has to deal with the substance of the case. If this question cannot be answered generally in the negative or affirmative, what are the circumstances which determine whether such an obligation should be deemed to exist?
2. Does Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, whether or not in conjunction with other provisions of Community law, prevent a member-state from refusing to admit a relative mentioned in Article 10(1) of the regulation, of a worker employed within the territory of that member-state, where the relative wishes to take up residence there with that worker, if the worker has the nationality of the State in which he works and the relative has another nationality? First question [6] In substance the first question seeks to ascertain whether the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty must be construed as meaning that a court or tribunal of a member-state against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must refer to the Court a question of interpretation as referred to in the first paragraph of that Article if the question is raised in interlocutory proceedings and the decision to be given is not binding on the court or tribunal which later has to deal with the substance of the case even if the court or tribunal belongs to a different jurisdictional system. [7] The second paragraph of Article 177 provides that a court or tribunal of a member-state before which is raised a question of interpretation or validity as mentioned in the first paragraph of that Article may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the question if it considers that a decision thereon is necessary to enable it to give judgment. However, the third paragraph of Article 177 provides that where any such question is raised before a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy*230 under national law that court or tribunal must bring the matter before the Court. [8] As the Court has already held in its judgment of 24 May 1977 in Case 107/76 Hoffmann-la Roche, [FN7] the purpose of Article 177 is to ensure that Community law is interpreted and applied in a uniform manner in all the member- States. Viewed in that light the particular purpose of the third paragraph of Article 177 is to prevent a body of national case law that is not in accord with the rules of Community law from coming into existence in any member-state. The requirements arising from that purpose are observed as regards summary and urgent proceedings such as those in the present case, where ordinary proceedings as to the substance, permitting the reexamination of any question of Community law provisionally decided in the summary proceedings, must be instituted either in all the circumstances or when the unsuccessful party so requires. FN7 [1977] E.C.R. 957, [1977] 2 C.M.L.R. 334. [9] Therefore the specific objective underlying the third paragraph of Article 177 is preserved if the obligation to refer preliminary questions to the Court applies within the context of proceedings as to the substance even if that action is tried before the courts or tribunals belonging to a jurisdictional system different from
that under which the interlocutory proceedings are conducted, provided that it is still possible to refer to the Court under Article 177 any questions of Community law which are raised. [10] The answer to the first question submitted by the Hoge Raad must therefore be that the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is not required to refer to the Court a question of interpretation as referred to in the first paragraph of that Article if the question is raised in interlocutory proceedings and the decision to be taken is not binding on the court or tribunal which later has to deal with the substance of the case, provided that each of the parties is entitled to institute proceedings or to require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case even before the courts or tribunals of another jurisdictional system and that during such proceedings any question of Community law provisionally decided in the summary proceedings may be re-examined and be the subject of a reference to the Court under Article 177. Second question [11] In substance the second question seeks to ascertain whether, and if so in which circumstances, Community law prohibits a member-state from refusing to allow a relative, as referred to in Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68 cited above, of a worker employed within that member-state's territory to enter or reside within its*231 territory if the worker has the nationality of that State and the relative the nationality of a non-member country. [12] Article 48 of the Treaty provides that freedom of movement of workers within the Community is to entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member-states. Article 10 of Council Regulation 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the community, cited above, provides that specified members of a worker's family, including dependent relatives in the ascending line, 'shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one member-state and who is employed in the territory of another member-state.' [13] Since that provision does not cover the position of dependent relatives of a worker who is a national of the member-state within whose territory he is employed, the answer to the preliminary question depends on whether it may be inferred from the context of the provisions and the place which they occupy in the Community legal system as a whole that they have a right of entry and residence. [14] In this regard the applicants in the main proceedings rely on the rule prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality which Article 7 of the Treaty enunciates in general terms and to which Article 48 gives more specific expressions. [15] It is, however, clear that Article 7 and Article 48 may be invoked only where the case in question comes within the area to which Community law applies, which in this case is that concerned with freedom of movement of workers within
the Community. Not only does that conclusion emerge from the wording of those Articles, but it also accords with their purpose, which is to assist in the abolition of all obstacles to the establishment of a Common Market in which the nationals of the member-states may move freely within the territory of those states in order to pursue their economic activities. [16] It follows that the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for workers and the rules adopted to implement them cannot be applied to cases which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by Community law. [17] Such is undoubtedly the case with workers who have never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community. [18] The answer to the second question submitted by the Hoge Raad must therefore be that Community law does not prohibit a member-state from refusing to allow a relative, as referred to in Article 10 of Council Regulation 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, of a worker employed within the territory of that State who has never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community to enter or reside within its territory if that worker has the nationality*232 of that State and the relative the nationality of a non-member country. Costs [19] The costs incurred by the Governments of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Order On those grounds, THE COURT, in answer to the questions submitted to it by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgments of 15 January 1982 HEREBY RULES: 1. The third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is not required to refer to the Court a question of interpretation as referred to in the first paragraph of that Article if the question is raised in interlocutory proceedings and the decision to be taken is not binding on the court or tribunal which later has to deal with the substance of the case, provided that each of the parties is entitled to institute proceedings or to require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case even before the courts or tribunals of another jurisdictional system and that during such proceedings any question of Community law provisionally decided in the summary proceedings may be re-examined and be the subject of a reference to the Court under Article 177. 2. Community law does not prohibit a member-state from refusing to allow a relative, as referred to in Article 10 of Council Regulation 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, of a worker employed within the territory of that State who has never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community to enter or reside within its territory if that worker has the nationality of that State and the relative the nationality of a non-member country. (c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited [1983] 2 C.M.L.R. 221 END OF DOCUMENT