Case registered before the CJEU - C-69/21

According to the application submitted to the CJEU:

"The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the question whether X must be granted a residence permit or must be permitted to postpone departure because of serious medical problems and what the medical consequences will be if the treatment which X is undergoing (pain relief with medicinal cannabis) cannot be continued because he must comply with his departure obligation under the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on foreign nationals of 2000). Having regard to Directive 2008/115/EC, the Rechtbank (District Court) requests the interpretation of Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter, in order to assess whether a foreign national must be granted a postponement of departure because of his serious medical problems. In addition, the Rechtbank requests the interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter in order to be able to assess whether medical treatment in a Member State is an aspect of private life which must be taken into account when assessing an application for a residence permit.

I. Can a significant increase in pain intensity due to a lack of medical treatment, while the clinical picture remains unchanged, constitute a situation which is contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, if no postponement of the departure obligation resulting from Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) is permitted?

II. Is the setting of a fixed period within which the consequences of the lack of medical treatment must materialise in order to constitute a medical obstacle to an obligation to return resulting from the Return Directive compatible with Article 4 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter? If the setting of a fixed period is not contrary to EU law, is a Member State then permitted to set a general period that is the same for all possible medical conditions and all possible medical consequences?

III Is a determination that the consequences of expulsion should be assessed solely in terms of whether, and under what conditions, the foreign national can travel, compatible with Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and with the Return Directive?

IV Does Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that the medical condition of the foreign national and the treatment he is undergoing in the Member State be assessed when determining whether private life considerations should result in permission to stay being granted? Does Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that private life and family life, as referred to in Article 7 of the Charter, be taken into account when assessing whether medical problems may constitute an obstacle to expulsion?