Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Ibrahima Diallo v État belge (C-246/17)
Consideration of the questions referred
Substance
The fifth question
46

Ibrahima Diallo v État belge (C-246/17)

Judgment of 27 Jun 2018law://eu/cjeu/2017/c-246-17/para_46@2026-11-10

46On that basis, while EU law in no way precludes the Member States establishing rules on implicit acceptance or authorisation, such rules must nevertheless not impair the effectiveness of EU law.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-246/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2018:499
Decided: 27 Jun 2018
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium)
Applicant: Ibrahima Diallo
Defendant: État belge
Rapporteur: R. Silva de Lapuerta
Advocate General: Y. Bot
Bench: 5 judges
R. Silva de Lapuerta, C.G. Fernlund, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, S. Rodin
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62017CJ0246

Topics

Asylum policy Charter of Fundamental Rights Citizenship of the Union Freedom of establishment Freedom of movement for workers Freedom to provide services Justice and home affairs Principles of Union law

History · 1 version

27 Jun 2018Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 8: Minister for Justice v I.T (C-477/24); XXX v État belge (C-607/21); Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság (C-754/18); AS „PrivatBank” v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (C-480/18)2 provisions; TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (C-519/18); X v Belgische Staat (C-706/18)3 provisions; Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe (C-423/18); X and X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C-47/17, C-48/17)
Cites 16: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016)6 provisions; Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance); Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych (C-403/16); Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (C-64/16); Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-165/16); Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS (C-304/14); O. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B (C-456/12); The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-202/13); Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm (C-40/11); Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification; Ibrahima Diallo v État belge (C-246/17); Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-127/08); Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Maria Dias (C-325/09); Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (C-161/15); Secretary of State for the Home Department v Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman and Others (C-83/11)