Short answer
A host Member State may restrict an EU citizen's or qualifying family member's free-movement rights for public policy, public security or public health, but only within the strict framework of Directive 2004/38/EC. Public-policy and security measures must be proportionate, based exclusively on the individual's conduct, and respond to a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society. A conviction, administrative label or desire for general deterrence is not enough.
Protection rises with integration. A permanent resident may be expelled only on serious grounds of public policy or public security. An EU citizen who resided in the host State for the previous ten years, and ordinarily a minor, may be expelled only on imperative grounds of public security. Before deciding, the authority must assess residence duration, age, health, family and economic situation, integration and links to the country of origin.
Public health is narrower still: only specified diseases can justify restrictions, and an illness arising more than three months after arrival cannot justify expulsion. Written reasons, time to leave, and judicial or administrative redress are required.
The Directive applies a structured exception
Articles 27–33 of Directive 2004/38 govern restrictions on entry and residence for EU citizens and their family members, including third-country family members within its scope. The grounds cannot be invoked for economic ends. Because expulsion derogates from a fundamental freedom and EU citizenship, the grounds are interpreted strictly.
The authority should identify which ground is actually relied on. “Public policy” ordinarily concerns a serious disturbance of a fundamental social interest. “Public security” may cover internal and external security, including exceptionally serious organised crime. Public health has its own exhaustive timing and disease rules. Broad references to national interest or a confidential assessment do not remove the need to apply the legal test.
Personal conduct and a present serious threat
Article 27(2) supplies the baseline test for public policy and public security:
“Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.” —
The conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society. Justifications isolated from the particulars of the case, or serving general prevention, are prohibited. The State bears the responsibility for demonstrating the threat.
A conviction can supply important evidence: the offence, circumstances, sentence, time elapsed, rehabilitation and later behaviour may reveal a continuing danger. But automatic expulsion after a specified offence or sentence is incompatible with individualized assessment. In Bouchereau, C-30/77, the Court established that a past conviction matters only insofar as its underlying circumstances evidence personal conduct constituting a present threat. In exceptional cases, past conduct may itself disclose a sufficiently serious threat even where a simple prediction of reoffending is difficult, but the threshold remains high.
In Orfanopoulos and Oliveri, joined cases C-482/01 and C-493/01, the Court rejected presumptive expulsion based on categories of conviction. The decision-maker must consider the danger at the legally relevant decision point. National procedure cannot make later conduct and current family circumstances irrelevant where EU law requires an up-to-date proportionality assessment.
Proportionality is a separate requirement
Even a qualifying threat does not make expulsion automatic. Article 28(1) requires consideration of:
- how long the person has resided in the host State;
- age and state of health;
- family and economic situation;
- social and cultural integration; and
- the extent of links with the country of origin.
The seriousness and recency of the threat must be balanced against the consequences for the citizen and family. Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter reinforce respect for family life and a child's best interests. These considerations do not create immunity from expulsion, but they must genuinely influence the decision.
The same distinction matters for third-country parents of EU-citizen children outside the Directive. In Rendón Marín, C-165/14, and CS, C-304/14, the Court held that a criminal conviction alone cannot justify refusing an Article 20 TFEU derivative right. Expulsion may be possible where the parent's personal conduct presents the required genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat, after individual proportionality and child-interest assessment.
Permanent residence raises the threshold
An EU citizen or family member with permanent residence benefits from Article 28(2): expulsion requires “serious grounds” of public policy or public security. The authority must first verify that permanent residence was acquired and not lost, rather than applying the ordinary threshold by default.
This enhanced protection reflects integration in the host State. “Serious grounds” demand more than the baseline Article 27 threat. The State must explain why the nature, scale and present character of the danger meet that higher level, as well as why a less restrictive response is inadequate.
Ten years' residence and minors receive the highest protection
An EU citizen resident in the host State for the previous ten years may ordinarily be expelled only on “imperative grounds of public security.” The same highest threshold normally protects a minor, unless expulsion is necessary for the child's best interests under the relevant international convention.
The ten-year period is calculated backwards from the expulsion decision. It is not simply a historical total. Imprisonment or absence can interrupt continuity, but the answer depends on an overall assessment of whether integrative links with the host State were broken. Residence before imprisonment, the offence, detention and the person's circumstances all matter.
In Tsakouridis, C-145/09, the Court held that combating organised drug trafficking can be capable of falling within imperative grounds of public security. That does not mean every drug conviction qualifies. The national authority still must establish the individual's present threat and conduct the full proportionality assessment.
“The concept of ‘imperative grounds’ of public security is considerably stricter than that of ‘serious grounds’.” —
The tiers therefore constrain both the reason and its intensity. Renaming ordinary crime a security concern cannot bypass the higher standard.
Public-health restrictions are tightly limited
Article 29 permits only diseases with epidemic potential defined by relevant World Health Organization instruments and other infectious diseases or contagious parasitic diseases that are subject to protective provisions applying to nationals of the host State.
An illness occurring after three months from arrival cannot justify expulsion. Where there are serious indications during the first three months, a State may require a free medical examination, but not as a matter of routine. Health restrictions must not become disguised disability discrimination or a general screening programme.
Public health also differs from public policy and security: personal fault is not the question. The authority must instead establish that the disease and timing fall within Article 29 and that the measure is necessary and proportionate.
Procedure, reasons and review
Article 30 requires written notification in a form the person can understand. The decision must disclose precise and full grounds unless State security genuinely prevents disclosure. It must state the court or authority for appeal, the time limit, and normally allow at least one month for departure, except in duly substantiated urgency.
Article 31 requires access to judicial and, where appropriate, administrative redress. Review must cover legality, facts and proportionality. Interim protection must be practically available under the Directive's rules; the person generally cannot be removed while an application for an interim order is pending, subject to defined exceptions.
Classified security material does not create a blank cheque. In the 2026 judgment PQ, C-26/25, concerning a third-country parent of EU-citizen children and the Return Directive, the Court rejected a return decision based solely on a binding, unreasoned national-security opinion without rigorous individual and proportionality review. It also required rights of defence and effective judicial protection even where disclosure could harm security. The case does not replace Directive 2004/38's rules, but confirms that a security label cannot eliminate examination and review.
If an expulsion order is enforced more than two years after it was made, Article 33 requires verification that the person remains a genuine threat and assessment of any material change. An excluded person may normally apply to lift the order after a reasonable period and in any event after three years, showing a material change in circumstances.
Practical decision sequence
The correct sequence is: establish the person's residence status and protection tier; identify the precise public-policy, security or health ground; prove the present individual threat or the Article 29 health condition; assess proportionality and family consequences; then provide reasons and effective review. Skipping a stage cannot be cured by repeating the seriousness of the original offence.
Conclusion
EU law permits expulsion to protect fundamental societal interests, not to impose a second automatic punishment or deter others. The ordinary rule requires personal conduct posing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat. Permanent residence, ten years' integration and minority progressively raise the threshold. Public health is confined to defined diseases and an early-arrival window. In every category, a current, individualized, proportionate and reviewable decision is essential.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.