EU-Hof: een lidstaat kan fraude in verband met een schijnhuwelijk onderzoeken en het bestaan daarvan vaststellen, zelfs nadat de betrokkene de nationaliteit van die lidstaat heeft verkregen
Het persbericht over de zaak Besthame (C-560/24) behandelt een belangrijk arrest van het EU-Hof van 4 juni 2026. Het Hof oordeelde dat een lidstaat fraude in verband met een schijnhuwelijk mag onderzoeken en vaststellen, zelfs nadat de betrokken persoon de nationaliteit van die lidstaat heeft verkregen.
Kernpunten uit het persbericht:
Achtergrond: Een derdelander verkreeg via een huwelijk Iers staatsburgerschap. Ierse autoriteiten startten een onderzoek naar een vermoedelijk schijnhuwelijk. De persoon in kwestie stelde dat dit niet meer kon omdat hij inmiddels Iers staatsburger was.
Uitspraak: Het EU-Hof stelt dat de regels tegen misbruik van Unierecht ook gelden voor situaties uit het verleden. Lidstaten kunnen dus actie ondernemen tegen eerder verkregen rechten, zelfs als de betrokkene geen EU-richtlijn-begunstigde meer is op het moment van het onderzoek.
Gevolgen: Indien fraude wordt bewezen, kan dit leiden tot het intrekken van de verkregen nationaliteit.
Zie hier het persbericht:
PRESS RELEASE No 80/26
Luxembourg, 4 June 2026
Judgment of the Court in Case C-560/24 | [Besthame] 1
Union citizenship: a Member State may investigate fraud involving a marriage
of convenience and establish its existence even after the person concerned has
acquired its nationality
A third-country national settled in Ireland as a student. Shortly before his residence permit expired, he married a citizen of
the European Union who had exercised her freedom of movement. Following that marriage, he obtained a residence card
as a family member of a Union citizen, and then acquired Irish nationality in 2015, which has since formed the basis of his
right of residence. However, the Irish authorities suspected that that marriage was a marriage of convenience and that the
rights of residence were obtained fraudulently. The Irish Minister for Justice then adopted decisions finding fraud and an
abuse of rights, and considered that the rights derived from the directive on freedom of movement 2 must be regarded as
having been withdrawn from the outset. The person concerned challenged those decisions, arguing that, having become
an Irish citizen, he is no longer subject to that directive.
The Irish court hearing the case asked the Court of Justice whether the directive allows national authorities to investigate
and, where appropriate, establish fraud or an abuse of rights committed in the past, even where the person concerned has
acquired the nationality of the host Member State and is no longer, at the time of the investigation, subject to the rules of
that directive.
In today’s judgment, the Court replies, stating that Member States may investigate past fraud and establish its
existence, even if the person concerned has acquired the nationality of the host Member State.
The Court recalls that the directive is to apply to all Union citizens who reside in a Member State other than the one of
which they are a national, and to their family members. It does not, in principle, govern the situation of a person who has
acquired the nationality of the host Member State and whose residence is now based on national law. However, that
person may remain subject to certain provisions of the directive for the period during which they benefited from
those provisions.
The Court then held that the rules of that directive relating to the prevention of fraud and abuse of rights also apply
to past situations. They allow Member States to take measures concerning rights conferred previously, even if the
person is no longer, at the time of the authorities’ intervention, a beneficiary of the directive. Any contrary
interpretation would undermine the objective of combating marriages of convenience and fraudulent practices, which are
often detected belatedly.
Lastly, the Court states that those rules confer on Member States the power to investigate and, where appropriate,
establish the existence of fraud or an abuse of rights, without it being necessary to adopt immediately a measure affecting
the rights in question. That power, which must be exercised in accordance with the principle of proportionality and the
procedural safeguards, may allow consequences to be drawn at a later stage, including the withdrawal of a Union citizen’s
nationality and, consequently, their status as a Union citizen, provided that the requirements of EU law are complied with.