This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0444
Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
OJ C 330, 2.10.2017, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
2.10.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 330/7 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
(Case C-444/17)
(2017/C 330/09)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour de cassation
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales
Respondents: Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
Questions referred
1. |
Is Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (1) of 9 March 2016, which provides that, when border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II (relating to external borders) are to apply mutatis mutandis, to be interpreted to the effect that border controls reintroduced at an internal border of a Member State may be equated with border controls at an external border, when that border is crossed by a third-country national who has no right of entry? |
2. |
In the same circumstances of reintroduction of controls at internal borders, do that regulation and 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 (2) staying third-country nationals permit the application to the situation of a third-country national crossing a border at which controls have been reintroduced of the power, conferred on them by Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, to continue to apply simplified national return procedures at their external borders? |
3. |
If the answer to the previous question should be affirmative, do the provisions of Article 2(2)(a) and of Article 4(4) of the directive preclude national legislation such as Article L.621-2 Ceseda, which penalises with a term of imprisonment the illegal entry into national territory of a third-country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed? |
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).