ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part. Any action affecting the right of persons coming within the field of application of article 48 of the treaty to enter and reside freely in the member states under the same conditions as the nationals of the host state constitutes a ‘measure’ for the purposes of article 3(1) and (2) of directive no 64/221/EEC. That concept includes the action of a court which is required by the law to recommend in certain cases the deportation of a national of another member state , where such recom- mendation constitutes a necessary prerequisite for a decision to make a deportation order. Article 3(2) of directive no 64/221/EEC, according to which previous criminal convictions do not in themselves constitute grounds for the imposition of the restrictions on free movement authorized by article 48 of the treaty on grounds of public policy and public security, must be interpreted to mean that previous criminal convictions are relevant only in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to them are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy.
In so far as it may justify certain restrictions on the free movement of persons subject to community law , recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation to the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
‘In so far as it may justify certain restrictions on the free movement of persons subject to Community law, recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.’
The ECJ held, in answer to the three questions asked of it, that:
i) a recommendation for deportation was a ‘measure’ within Article 3(1) since it was a pre-condition for the making of a deportation order under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971;
ii) the effect of Article 3(2) was that a previous criminal conviction could be taken into account only if it was evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy; and
iii) ‘recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy pre-supposes . . the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.’
C-30/77, [1977] ECR 1999, R-30/77, [1977] EUECJ R-30/77, [1987] QB 732
Bailii
Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Cited – Regina v Kraus CACD 1982
. .
Cited – Regina v Compassi CACD 1987
The court considered the test in deciding whether to make a recommendation for deportation of a defendant on completion of his jail sentence: ‘So far as this case is concerned this appellant has no previous convictions, and the question which has to . .
Cited – Regina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .
Cited – Regina v Escauriaza CACD 2-Jan-1988
For all practical purposes the tests for deportation of an EU national after completion of a sentence of imprisonment are the same in Nazari and Bouchereau: ‘Thus under EEC Law a valid recommendation for deportation can only be made if at least two . .
Cited – Benabbas, Regina v CACD 12-Aug-2005
The Court considered a recommendation for the deportation of an Algerian national after the completion of his sentence.
Held: Rix LJ referred to both the Nazari and the Bouchereau tests, and said: ‘The Appellant is not of course an EU . .
Cited – Regina v Nazari CACD 1980
The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .
Cited – Regina v Spura 3-Jan-1988
The court considered the test for ordering deportation of an EU National after completion of his sentence of imprisonment, applying Bouchereau and Nazari: ‘. . in the case of Escauriaza . . the Court . . concluded, accepting a submission from an . .
Cited – Regina v Cravioto 1990
. .
Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, European, Crime, Immigration
Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.132607