1. See ECJ, Case C-138/13, Dogan, EU:C:2014:2066, Judgment of July 10, 2014; ECJ, C-561/14, Genc, EU:C:2016:247, Judgment of April 12, 2016; ECJ, Case C-579/13, P and S, EU:C:2015:369, Judgment of June 4, 2015; ECJ, Case C-153/14, K and A, EU:C:2015:453, Judgment of July 9, 2015.
2. ECJ, Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14, Alo and Osso, EU:C:2016:127, para 59.
3. Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, O.J. 1022 L 337, p. 9.
4. See ECJ, Case C-138/13, Dogan, EU:C:2014:2066, Judgment of July 10, 2014. This case concerned the application of integration conditions in the form of language test prior to family reunification. The Court considered that even on the assumption that the grounds adduced related to the prevention of forced marriages and the promotion of integration could constitute overriding reasons in the public interest, it remains the case that national measures which automatically led to the dismissal of an application for family reunification due to lack of evidence of sufficient linguistic knowledge go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued (see para 38 of the judgment).
5. In Genc, the integration condition at issue required that, in order to benefit from family, a child, or be able to establish sufficient ties to Denmark to enable successful integration. That condition applied only if the application was made more than two years after the award of the resident permit to the parent. The Court considered that the integration condition at issue was unconnected with the likelihood of achieving integration. Since the condition was not justified, it was considered as a “new restriction” contrary to the stand still clause.