On the 29th of June 2023, the CJEU ruled in its joined cases C‑829/21 and C‑129/22. The first case concerned TE, a Ghanaian national, who entered Germany holding a long-term EU residence permit issued in Italy but received a one-year residence permit in Germany. She gave birth to RU who suffered from a heart defect and therefore she was forced to stop working. Her renewal of a residence permit was rejected because their means of subsistence were not secure and so they were asked to leave Germany. In the course of the proceedings the authorities argued that it was no longer possible to issue a residence permit as TE had not resided in Italy for more than six years and therefore no longer had long-term resident status. The second case concerned EF, a Pakistani national, who also entered Germany with long-term EU residence permit issued in Italy and received a one-year residence permit. His renewal was rejected because he was no longer entitled to maintain his long-term resident status since he had not resided in Italy for more than six years.
The CJEU first held that that Article 22(1)(b) of the Directive 2003/109 as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU (Long-Term Resident Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a MS can refuse to renew a residence permit that it granted to a TCN pursuant to Chapter III of the Long-Term Resident Directive provided that the TCN was absent for six years from the territory of the first MS that granted them the residence permit in line with the second subparagraph of Article 9 (4) and that the option provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 9(4) has not been used by the first MS that granted the residence permit, that the six-year period ended at the latest on the date on which the application for renewal of that permit was lodged and the TCN had previously been invited to produce proof of his or her presence (if any) in that territory during that period.
The Court then held that the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) and Article 22 (1) (b) of the Long-Term Resident Directive must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions are duly transposed into national law by a second MS which implements them by means of two separate provisions where the first provision sets out the ground leading to loss of the right to long-term resident status referred to in Article 9(4), and the second provides, without referring specifically to one of the grounds for loss of that right referred to in Article 9, that a residence permit under the provisions of Chapter III must be revoked if the TCN is no longer entitled to maintain their long-term resident status in the MS that issued it.
Lastly, the CJEU ruled that the second subparagraph of Article 15(4) of the Long-Term Resident Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the MS in which the TCN has applied for the grant of a residence permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III or for the renewal of such a permit cannot reject that application on the ground that the TCN did not include with the application documentary evidence establishing that they have appropriate accommodation, if that MS has not implemented that provision.