Comments on: Commission v Netherlands [2007] http://www.eucaselaw.info/commission-v-netherlands-2007/ a blog about leading judgments of the ECJ, CFI, CST and ECtHR Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:46:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Florin ALEXANDRU http://www.eucaselaw.info/commission-v-netherlands-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Florin ALEXANDRU Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:55:46 +0000 http://www.eucaselaw.info/commission-v-netherlands-2007/#comment-129 First, interpretation of the boundaries to which a Member State extend the "public security" reasons without getting in contradiction with the reserved right of the Commission to interpret this concept is questionable. As long as the public security is a matter of interpretation exlusively in the domestic law of the given country, the rights that are derived from this matter should also be interpreted by the domestic law first and not in the frame of the Communities law, unless explicitey provided so in Treaties or Directives. On the other hand, according to the judgement, the "automatic connection" is "possible" (then, not proven at the time of the judgement). Seen from this point, the judgement apparentely leaves the interpretation of the reason for expulsion to the given domestic Court, anyway. There is not enough to state that it is possible, it should be proven that the case brought to the instance was causally related to that "possibility" - I did not found this demonstration in the rationale of the judgement. First, interpretation of the boundaries to which a Member State extend the “public security” reasons without getting in contradiction with the reserved right of the Commission to interpret this concept is questionable.

As long as the public security is a matter of interpretation exlusively in the domestic law of the given country, the rights that are derived from this matter should also be interpreted by the domestic law first and not in the frame of the Communities law, unless explicitey provided so in Treaties or Directives.

On the other hand, according to the judgement, the “automatic connection” is “possible” (then, not proven at the time of the judgement). Seen from this point, the judgement apparentely leaves the interpretation of the reason for expulsion to the given domestic Court, anyway.

There is not enough to state that it is possible, it should be proven that the case brought to the instance was causally related to that “possibility” – I did not found this demonstration in the rationale of the judgement.

]]>