Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61974J0067
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 26 FEBRUARY 1975. CARMELO ANGELO BONSIGNORE V OBERSTADTDIREKTOR DER STADT KOELN. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT KOELN. PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC SECURITY. CASE 67-74.
Rozsudek ESD ze dne 26. února 1975
Věc č. 67/74
Carlmelo Angelo Bonsignore v. Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Kln
Rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce
(1975) ECR “Bonsignore”
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1975 PAGES 0297 - 0306
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVICES;RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E048; 157E056; 364L0221;
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    to judgements to be included into the series
    Martin, Zur Problematik der Generalpravention im Auslanderrecht - Zugleich eine Ammerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 26/02/1975 - Rechtssache 67/74, DVBI 1975, 764-768 Rittstieg, Helmut, Anmerkung zu den Urtellen in den Rechtssachen 41/74 (van Duyn) und 67/74 ( Bonsignore), EuR 1976, 54-58
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ano

Fakta:
Mr Bonsignore, of Italian nationality and residing in the Federal Republic of Germany, brought a claim against the decision of the Aliens Authority to deport him following his conviction for an offence against the Firearms Law and for causing death by negligence.
Mr Bonsignore was unlawfully in possession of a firearm and had accidentally caused the death of his brother by his careless handling of the firearm concerned. He had been sentenced a fine for an offence against the firearms legislation. Mr Bonsignore had also been found guilty of causing death by negligence but no punishment had been imposed on his count, considering that no purpose would be served thereby in view of the circumstances, notably the mental suffering caused to the individual concerned as a result of the consequences of his carelessness.
Following the criminal conviction, the Aliens Authority ordered that Mr Bonsignore be deported in accordance with the “Aliens Law” and with the “Law on the entry and residence of nationals of Member States of the EEC” which was adopted in order to implement Council Directive No 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health OJ L, p. 850.
. While the deportation could - in the light of the circumstances - not be justified on grounds of a “special preventive nature” - i.e. with the objective of deterring and rehabilitating the individual in question -, the Aliens Authority argued that it was justified on grounds of “general preventive nature”, meaning that the deportation would have a deterrent effect on other aliens. Upon his Appeal, the Verwaltungsgericht, in order to interpret the national law in conformity with Directive 64/221, under Article 177 of the Treaty, referred to the Court questions concerning Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive No 64/221.


Pan Bonsignore, italský státní příslušník s pobytem ve Spolkové republice Německo, se odvolal proti rozhodnutí Cizinecké správy o jeho vyhoštění z důvodů jeho odsouzení za přečin proti zákonu o střelných zbraní a za nedbalostní usmrcení.
Pan Bonsignore měl neoprávněně v držení zbraň, kterou při neopatrném zacházení způsobil smrt svého bratra. Byl odsouzen k pokutě za přečin proti zákonu o střelných zbraních. Pan Bonsignore byl rovněž shledán vinným za nedbalostní usmrcení svého bratra, avšak v této souvislosti mu nebyl uložen trest, neboť by to bylo bezúčelné vzhledem k okolnostem, zejména psychickému utrpení způsobenému dotčenému následky jeho vlastní neopatrnosti.
V souvislosti s odsouzením za trestný čin, nařídila Cizinecká správa vyhoštění pana Bonsignore, a to na základě ustanovení “zákona o cizincích” a “zákona o vstupu a pobytu příslušníků členských států EHS”, který byl přijat, k provedení Směrnice Rady č. 64/ 221/EHS ze dne 25. února 1964 o koordinaci zvláštních opatření souvisejících s pohybem a pobytem cizích státních příslušníků odůvodněných veřejným pořádkem, veřejnou bezpečností, nebo veřejným zdravím. I když by vyhoštění za daných okolností nemuselo být oprávněné “zvláštní preventivní povahou” - tedy cílem odstrašení a napravení dotčené osoby - Cizinecká správa tvrdila, že to bylo oprávněno “obecnou preventivní povahou” v tom smyslu, že vyhoštění by mělo odstrašující efekt na ostatní cizince.
Na základě jeho odvolání, the Verwaltungsgericht (Správní soud), za účelem výkladu národního předpisu v souladu se Směrnicí 64/221, podle článku 177 Smlouvy ES postoupil ESD otázky týkající se článku 3 (1) a (2) Směrnice č. 64/221.
___________________________1OJ L, str. 850.

Názor soudu a komentář:
According to Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive No 64/221, “Measures taken on grounds of public policy or of public security shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned” and “Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for the taking of such measures”. These provision seek to transform the exceptions from the principle of free movement provided for in Articles 48 (3) and 56 of the Treaty on the grounds of public policy and for the maintenance of public security and to coordinate measures justified on these grounds.
Interpreting the provisions of the directive in the light of the principle of free movement to which they form an exception, the Court finds that they have to be construed narrowly. Given the wording of the provision, which refers to “exclusively ... personal conduct”, the Court finds that measures adopted on grounds of public policy cannot be justified on grounds extraneous to the individual case. Therefore, the deportation of a national of a Member State may not be “ordered for the purpose of deterring other aliens, that is (...) on reasons of ‘general preventive nature’”.
Apart from the substantive questions dealt with in the decision, the judgement is also remarkable from a methodological point of view. While commentators have regarded the decision as an example of direct application of the directive or even of Article 48 (3) of the Treaty, it rather appears to be a case of interpretation of the national law in the light of and in conformity with the directive which it is intended to implement.


V souladu s článkem 3 (1) a (2) Směrnice č. 64/221, “opatření provedená z důvodů veřejného zájmu, nebo veřejného pořádku by měla být výlučně založena na chování dotčeného jedince” a “předchozí odsouzení pro trestné činy by samo o sobě nemělo být důvodem pro provedení takových opatření”. Tato ustanovení mají za účel upravit výjimky ze zásady volného pohybu podle článků 48 (3) a 56 Smlouvy ES, a to z důvodu veřejného pořádku, a zabezpečení veřejné bezpečnosti a koordinovat opatření tímto odůvodněná.
Při výkladu ustanovení směrnice ve světle principu volného pohybu, ve vztahu k němuž zakládají výjimku, Soud shledal, že musí být vykládány úzce. Vzhledem ke znění ustanovení, které odkazuje na “výlučně ...... osobní chování” Soud shledal, že opatření přijatá z důvodů veřejného pořádku nemohou být oprávněná důvody, jež se nevztahují k individuálnímu případu. Proto vyhoštění státního příslušníka členského státu nesmí být “nařízena za účelem odstrašení ostatních cizinců, tedy z důvodů (.....) “obecné preventivní povahy”.
Mimo základní otázky, kterou se rozhodnutí zabývalo, je rozsudek významný rovněž z metodologického hlediska. Zatímco komentátoři hodnotili rozhodnutí jako příklad bezprostřední použitelnosti směrnice, či dokonce článku 48 (3) Smlouvy, případ se spíše zdá býti záležitostí výkladu národního práva ve světle a v souladu se směrnicí, kterou provádí.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 SEEKS TO COORDINATE THE MEASURES JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC SECURITY ENVISAGED BY ARTICLES 48 AND 56 OF THE TREATY, IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THE APPLICATION OF THESE MEASURES WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THE ELIMINATION OF ALL DISCRIMINATION, IN THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY, BETWEEN THE NATIONALS OF THE STATE IN QUESTION AND THOSE OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES. AS DEPARTURES FROM THE RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS CONSTITUTE EXCEPTIONS WHICH MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE CONCEPT OF'PERSONAL CONDUCT' EXPRESSES THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEPORTATION ORDER MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR BREACHES OF THE PEACE WHICH MIGHT BE COMMITTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED. IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT ARTICLE 3 (1) AND (2) OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/221/EEC PREVENTS THE DEPORTATION OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE IF SUCH DEPORTATION IS ORDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERRING OTHER ALIENS, THAT IS, IF IT IS BASED ON REASONS O
F A'GENERAL PREVENTIVE NATURE'.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):
674J0067



Judgment of the Court
of 26 February 1975
Carmelo Angelo Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt
Köln.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Köln
- Germany.

Public policy and public security.

Case 67-74. Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1975.

Carmelo Angelo Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt
Köln.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Köln
- Germany.

Public policy and public security.

Case 67-74.



FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS - NON-DISCRIMINATION - EXCEPTIONS TO
BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED - OFFENCE AGAINST NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY
- NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE - DEPORTATION - PERSONAL CONDUCT
- MEASURE OF A GENERAL PREVENTIVE NATURE - PROHIBITION

(EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 48 AND 56; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 64/221/EEC,
ARTICLES 3 (1 ) AND (2 ))

DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 SEEKS TO COORDINATE THE MEASURES JUSTIFIED
ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
SECURITY ENVISAGED BY ARTICLES 48 AND 56 OF THE TREATY, IN ORDER
TO RECONCILE THE APPLICATION OF THESE MEASURES WITH THE BASIC
PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
AND THE ELIMINATION OF ALL DISCRIMINATION, IN THE APPLICATION
OF THE TREATY, BETWEEN THE NATIONALS OF THE STATE IN QUESTION
AND THOSE OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .

AS DEPARTURES FROM THE RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
CONSTITUTE EXCEPTIONS WHICH MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE CONCEPT
OF 'PERSONAL CONDUCT' EXPRESSES THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEPORTATION
ORDER MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR BREACHES OF THE PEACE WHICH MIGHT BE
COMMITTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED.

IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF DIRECTIVE
NO 64/221/EEC PREVENTS THE DEPORTATION OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER
STATE IF SUCH DEPORTATION IS ORDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERRING
OTHER ALIENS, THAT IS, IF IT IS BASED ON REASONS OF A 'GENERAL
PREVENTIVE NATURE '.

IN CASE 67/74

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY
THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT KOELN (COLOGNE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) FOR
A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

CARMELO ANGELO BONSIGNORE, CHEMICAL WORKER, RESIDING IN COLOGNE,

AND

THE OBERSTADTDIREKTOR (CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ) OF THE CITY
OF COLOGNE,

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST BEFORE
THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT KOELN,

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
NO 64/221/EEC OF 25 FEBRUARY 1964 ON THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL
MEASURES CONCERNING THE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY
OR PUBLIC HEALTH,

1 BY ORDER OF 30 JULY 1974, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON
14 SEPTEMBER 1974, THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT KOELN REFERRED TO THE
COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, TWO QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
NO 64/221/EEC OF 25 FEBRUARY 1964 ON THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL
MEASURES CONCERNING THE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY
OR PUBLIC HEALTH (OJ P. 850 ).

2 THESE QUESTIONS AROSE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPEAL BROUGHT
BY AN ITALIAN NATIONAL RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
AGAINST A DECISION TO DEPORT HIM TAKEN BY THE AUSLAENDERBEHOERDE
(ALIENS AUTHORITY ) FOLLOWING HIS CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENCE AGAINST
THE FIREARMS LAW AND FOR CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE.

THE ORDER CONTAINING THE REFERENCE SHOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE MAIN ACTION, WHO WAS UNLAWFULLY IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM,
ACCIDENTALLY CAUSED THE DEATH OF HIS BROTHER BY HIS CARELESS HANDLING
OF THE FIREARM CONCERNED.

FOR THIS REASON THE RELEVANT CRIMINAL COURT SENTENCED HIM TO A
FINE FOR AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE FIREARMS LEGISLATION.

THE COURT ALSO FOUND HIM GUILTY OF CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE
BUT IMPOSED NO PUNISHMENT ON THIS COUNT, CONSIDERING THAT NO PURPOSE
WOULD BE SERVED THEREBY IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTABLY
THE MENTAL SUFFERING CAUSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AS A RESULT
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CARELESSNESS.

3 FOLLOWING THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION THE 'AUSLAENDERBEHOERDE' (ALIENS
AUTHORITY ) ORDERED THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED TO BE DEPORTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUSLAENDERGESETZ (ALIENS LAW ) OF 28 APRIL
1965 (BUNDESGESETZBLATT, TEIL I, P. 353 ), IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE GESETZ UEBER EINREISE UND AUFENTHALT VON STAATSANGEHOERIGEN
DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN DER EUROPAEISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT
(LAW ON THE ENTRY AND RESIDENCE OF NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES
OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ) OF 22 JULY 1969 (BUNDESGESETZBLATT,
TEIL I, P. 927 ), WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVE
NO 64/221 IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY.

4 THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT, WHICH HEARD THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS
DECISION, CONSIDERED THAT BY REASON OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE THE DEPORTATION COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS
OF A 'SPECIAL PREVENTIVE NATURE' BASED EITHER ON THE FACTS WHICH
HAD GIVEN RISE TO THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OR ON THE PRESENT AND
FORESEEABLE CONDUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION.

THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT CONSIDERED THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE MEASURE ADOPTED WOULD BE THE REASONS OF A 'GENERAL PREVENTIVE
NATURE', WHICH WERE EMPHASIZED BOTH BY THE AUSLAENDERBEHOERDE
AND BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WERE BASED
ON THE DETERRENT EFFECT WHICH THE DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN FOUND
IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WOULD HAVE IN IMMIGRANT CIRCLES
HAVING REGARD TO THE RESURGENCE OF VIOLENCE IN THE LARGE URBAN CENTRES .
AS IT IS REQUIRED TO APPLY LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ADOPTED FOR
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY DIRECTIVE - IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE
12 OF THE LAW OF 22 JULY 1969 - THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT TAKES THE
VIEW THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO REQUEST THE COURT TO GIVE AN INTERPRETATION
OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THAT DIRECTIVE, IN ORDER TO ENSURE
THAT NATIONAL LAW IS APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF COMMUNITY LAW.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT HAS REFERRED TO
THE COURT THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS :

'1 . IS ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/221/EEC OF
THE COUNCIL OF 25 FEBRUARY 1964 ON THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL
MEASURES CONCERNING THE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY
OR PUBLIC HEALTH, TO BE INTERPRETED AS EXCLUDING THE DEPORTATION
OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
BY THE STATE AUTHORITY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERRING OTHER FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM COMMITTING SUCH CRIMINAL
OFFENCES AS THOSE WITH WHICH THE PERSON DEPORTED WAS CHARGED OR
SIMILAR OFFENCES OR OTHER INFRINGEMENTS OF PUBLIC SECURITY OR
PUBLIC POLICY, THAT IS, FOR REASONS OF A GENERAL PREVENTIVE NATURE?

2 . DOES THE SAID PROVISION MEAN THAT THE DEPORTATION OF A NATIONAL
OF A MEMBER STATE OF THE EEC IS POSSIBLE ONLY WHEN THERE ARE CLEAR
INDICATIONS THAT THE EEC NATIONAL, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN
OFFENCE, WILL COMMIT FURTHER OFFENCES OR WILL IN SOME OTHER WAY
DISREGARD PUBLIC SECURITY OR PUBLIC POLICY OF A MEMBER STATE OF
THE EEC, THAT IS, FOR REASONS OF A SPECIAL PREVENTIVE NATURE?'

5 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/221,
'MEASURES TAKEN ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY OR OF PUBLIC SECURITY
SHALL BE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE PERSONAL CONDUCT OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CONCERNED' AND 'PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS SHALL NOT IN THEMSELVES
CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR THE TAKING OF SUCH MEASURES '.

THESE PROVISIONS MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE DIRECTIVE WHICH SEEKS IN PARTICULAR TO COORDINATE THE MEASURES
JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF PUBLIC SECURITY ENVISAGED BY ARTICLES 48 AND 56 OF THE TREATY,
IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THE APPLICATION OF THESE MEASURES WITH THE
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
AND THE ELIMINATION OF ALL DISCRIMINATION, IN THE APPLICATION
OF THE TREATY, BETWEEN THE NATIONALS OF THE STATE IN QUESTION
AND THOSE OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES.

6 WITH THIS IN VIEW, ARTICLE 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE PROVIDES THAT
MEASURES ADOPTED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF PUBLIC SECURITY AGAINST THE NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES OF THE
COMMUNITY CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS EXTRANEOUS TO THE INDIVIDUAL
CASE, AS IS SHOWN IN PARTICULAR BY THE REQUIREMENT SET OUT IN
PARAGRAPH (1 ) THAT 'ONLY' THE 'PERSONAL CONDUCT' OF THOSE AFFECTED
BY THE MEASURES IS TO BE REGARDED AS DETERMINATIVE.

AS DEPARTURES FROM THE RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
CONSTITUTE EXCEPTIONS WHICH MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE CONCEPT
OF 'PERSONAL CONDUCT' EXPRESSES THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEPORTATION
ORDER MAY ONLY BE MADE FOR BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND PUBLIC SECURITY
WHICH MIGHT BE COMMITTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED.

7 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT
ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 PREVENTS THE DEPORTATION
OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE IF SUCH DEPORTATION IS ORDERED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERRING OTHER ALIENS, THAT IS, IF IT IS BASED,
IN THE WORDS OF THE NATIONAL COURT, ON REASONS OF A 'GENERAL PREVENTIVE
NATURE '.

8 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC
AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED
OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND 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 VERWALTUNGSGERICHT
KOELN, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

THE COURT

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT
KOELN BY ORDER OF 30 JULY 1974, HEREBY RULES :

ARTICLE 3 (1 ) AND (2 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 64/221/EEC OF
25 FEBRUARY 1964 ON THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL MEASURES CONCERNING
THE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED
ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY OR PUBLIC HEALTH
PREVENTS THE DEPORTATION OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE IF SUCH
DEPORTATION IS ORDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERRING OTHER ALIENS.