COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.03.1999 
COM(1999)127 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVES 
WJI1!; ^•F3%9 MM 93(96 
(RIGHT OF RESIDENCE) 
SUMMARY 
Freedom of movement was originally limited to people exercising an economic activity. At the 
end of a lengthy process, this right was extended to all Member State nationals, even those who 
were not economically active. These extended rights are contained in three Directives adopted 
on 28 June 1990 on the right of residence of students, retired persons and other non-
economically-active persons. Subject to certain conditions, the extension of the right of 
residence was formally enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty. The inclusion of Article 8a in the 
EC Treaty gives every citizen the fundamental and personal right to move and reside within the 
territory of the Member States. However, the conditions and practical procedures relating to this 
right, as laid down in secondary legislation, continue to apply. 
This report aims to provide an assessment of the implementation of the three Directives on the 
right of residence of students, retired persons and other persons not engaged in an economic 
activity. 
The first part of the assessment focuses on the transposition of the Directives. 
The first point of note is that the transposition process itself was long drawn out. Only three 
Member States had transposed the Directives by the deadline of 30 June 1992. The 
Commission brought infringement proceedings against the other Member States for non-
transposition, which were subsequently terminated once the transposition measures were 
adopted. In the case of one Member State, however, the infringement proceedings were 
referred to the Court of Justice, which ruled against that country in 1997. 
With regard to the content of the transposition measures, the Commission was obliged to 
commence infringement proceedings against fourteen Member States for incorrect 
transposition, an abnormally high dispute rate in view of the measures concerned. Most of the 
proceedings were terminated, some more quickly than others, after the Member States amended 
their legislation. However, the Commission was obliged to refer the proceedings against two 
Member States to the Court of Justice in 1998. 
The second part of the assessment of the implementation of the Directives deals with the 
experiences of the players involved, i.e. the citizens and administrations in the Member States. 
The complaints received by the Commission and petitions to the European Parliament provide 
valuable information about the difficulties encountered by citizens arising from the application 
of the Directives. These difficulties include uncertainty with regard to the procedures to be 
followed, the length and complexity of the steps required to obtain a residence permit, and 
difficulty in meeting the conditions with regard to sickness insurance and resources. 
The administrations themselves are often unsure about the provisions to be implemented and 
have difficulty in assessing the conditions to be met in terms of resources and sickness 
insurance in particular. 
The Commission has drawn preliminary conclusions in the following four areas from its 
assessment of the implementation of the three Directives: 
- step up the effort to inform citizens; 
- continue to ensure strict compliance with existing Community law; 
- make Community legislation on freedom of movement of persons clearer and restructure it 
around the notion of Union citizenship; 
- begin discussions on substantive changes to existing legislation. 
Introduction 
Free movement of persons includes the right to enter, move within, reside and, where 
appropriate, remain in a Member State other than the country of which the Community 
national is a citizen. In exercising this right, any discrimination on grounds of nationality 
is prohibited. Originally, however, the right of a national of a Member State to reside in 
the territory of another Member State of the European Community was basically subject 
to that person engaging in an economic activity in that State. The right of residence 
therefore followed on from the right to engage in an economic activity.1 
But such a state of affairs could not be allowed to continue indefinitely, because it did not 
fully comply with one of the objectives laid down in Article 3c of the Treaty of Rome 
("the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of ... 
persons"), nor did it meet the political aspiration expressed at the Paris Summit in 1974 
to move towards a "citizens' Europe".2 
Building on this new perception of the freedom of movement of persons, the 
Commission put forward a proposal in 19793 to extend the right of residence to other 
categories of persons who were not engaged in any economic activity, seeing this as an 
important step towards the completion of the Internal Market. But it was the impetus 
provided by the preparation and adoption of the Single European Act that was to generate 
the conditions necessary for the successful outcome of this process some ten years later. 
After withdrawing its 1979 proposal, the Commission split up the dossier and in 1989 put 
forward three new proposals4 covering students, retired persons and other persons not 
engaged in an economic activity5, culminating in the adoption by the Council on 28 June 
1990 of Directives 90/364 on the right of residence6, 90/365 on the right of residence of 
employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity7 and 
90/366 on the right of residence for students.8 
This extension in secondary legislation of the categories of persons entitled to the right of 
residence was subsequently formally enshrined at EC Treaty level with the insertion of 
Article 8a into the Maastricht Treaty, which states that "every citizen of the Union shall 
have the right to ... reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the 
limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it 
effect". 
1 See, for example, Art. 48(3) of the EEC Treaty. 
2 See the Report from the Commission on the Citizenship of the Union, 21.12.1993, COM(93)702 final, 
Section II. 
3 COM(79)215 final, OJ C 207, 17.8.1979, p. 14. 
4 OJC 191, 28.7.1989. 
5 The term "other non-economically-active persons" is used throughout this report to refer to the 
beneficiaries of Directive 90/364. 
6OJL180, 13.7.1990, p. 26. 
7 OJL 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28. 
8OJL180, 13.7.1990, p. 30. 
4 
Article 8a thus establishes the right of residence as a fundamental and personal right9 but 
does not cancel previously adopted secondary legislative instruments, in particular 
Directives 90/364, 90/365 and Directive 93/9610 which replaced Directive 90/366 after 
that Directive was annulled by the Court of Justice.11 
Apart from the right of residence, more general reference should be made to the 
importance of the status of European citizen reflected in Article 8(2), also incorporated 
into the EC Treaty by the Maastricht Treaty, under which "citizens of the Union shall 
enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed 
hereby". One of the essential rights in this respect is, as the Court of Justice recently 
reiterated12, that laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty of not being subject to 
discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application ratione materiae 
of the Treaty. 
This report has been produced by the Commission in fulfilment of its obligation to report 
to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the three Directives 
aimed at extending the right of residence to all Community nationals, even if they are not 
engaged in an economic activity, provided that they have sickness insurance and 
sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the 
host Member State. 
It should be noted that the three Directives also apply in the European Economic Area 
and that the EFT A Surveillance Authority is in the process of drawing up a report on the 
application of the Directives in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. 
This Commission report on the implementation of the above-mentioned Directives 
contains four sections: 
1. a brief summary of the content of the Directives; 
2. an examination of their transposition into national law from the point of view of both 
the deadlines involved and the content of the national measures adopted; 
3. an analysis of the practical application of the Directives based on information provided 
by the players involved: the citizens of the Union and the authorities responsible for 
residence matters; 
4. an assessment of the application of the Directives on the right of residence, with an 
outline of areas for future discussion and action to ensure that the right of residence 
works better in the future. 
10 See second report from the Commission on Citizenship of the Union, 27.5.1997, COM(97) 230 final, p. 
14. 
11 Judgment of 7.7.1992, Case C-295/90, ECR 1992, p. 1-4193. 
12 Judgment of 12.5.1998, Case C-85/96, ECR 1998, p. 1-2691. 
5 
1. The content of the Directives 
1.1. Retired persons and other non-economically-active persons: 
Directives 90/365 and 90/364 extend the right of residence to retired persons and other 
non-economically-active persons subject to two conditions: that they have sufficient 
resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member 
State during their period of residence, and that they are covered by sickness insurance in 
respect of all risks in the host Member State (Article 1(1), first subparagraph). Their 
resources are deemed sufficient if they exceed the threshold for social assistance 
applicable in the host Member State (Article 1(1), second subparagraph). 
The family members entitled to accompany the holder of the right of residence are his or 
her spouse and their dependants in the descending or ascending line (Article 1(2)). 
The validity of the residence permit may be limited to five years, and the Member States 
may, when they deem it to be necessary, require "revalidation" of the permit at the end of 
the first two years of residence (Article 2). By reference (in Article 2) to various 
provisions of Directive 68/360,13 the residence permit is valid throughout the territory of 
the Member State, its validity is not affected by breaks in residency of not more than six 
consecutive months, it is issued free of charge or at a cost which must not exceed the cost 
of the identity card issued to nationals of the host Member State, and the visas required, if 
need be, for family members who are not nationals of a Member State are issued free of 
charge and without undue formalities. 
Irrespective of their nationality, the holder's spouse and dependent children shall be 
entitled to take up any employed or self-employed activity anywhere within the territory 
of the host Member State (Article 2). 
The right of residence shall remain for as long as the beneficiaries of that right continue 
to satisfy the requirements with regard to sufficient resources and suitable sickness 
insurance (Article 3). 
1.2. Students: 
Before examining the provisions of Directive 93/96, a brief summary of the case-law of 
the Court of Justice pertaining to the legal basis for the right of residence for students is 
required. 
The basis for the right of residence for students: 
The wording used by the Council in Directive 90/366 ("Member States shall... grant the 
right of residence to any student") differs from the wording used in the Commission's 
1989 proposal ("the Member States shall recognise the right of residence"). In the light of 
the Gravier judgment14, the Commission took the view that students had a right of 
13 Council Directive of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within 
the Community for workers of Member States and their families, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. 
14 Judgment of 13.2.1985, Case 293/83, ECR 1985, p. 593. 
6 
residence deriving from the prohibition of any discrimination between Member State 
nationals with regard to vocational training access, and it therefore amended its proposal 
to exclude students from the scope of the Directive15. After Directive 90/366 was annulled 
by the Court of Justice16, the Commission reinserted the same wording in its 1993 
proposal17 as it had used in its 1989 proposal (the Member States "shall recognise" the 
right of residence). The Commission was backed up in its choice of wording by the 
Raulin judgment of 26 February 199218, where the Court of Justice ruled that "a national 
of a Member State who has been admitted to a course of vocational training in another 
Member State derives from Community law a right to reside in that other Member State 
for the purpose of following that course and for the duration thereof. Council Directive 
93/96 takes up this notion of entitlement, whence the wording that the Member States 
"shall recognise" the right of residence. 
The provisions on the right of residence contained in Directive 93/96: 
The right of residence is subject to the condition that the student is enrolled in a 
recognised educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational 
training course there and that he is covered by sickness insurance (Article 1). As regards 
resources, the student may choose to make a straightforward declaration (Article 1). 
The right of residence is extended to the student's spouse and dependent children, but not 
to other family members (Article 1). 
The validity of the residence permit may be limited to the duration of the course of 
studies or to one year where the course lasts longer (Article 2(1)). Reference is made to 
Directive 68/360 with regard to the cost of the residence permit and the procedures for 
issuing visas to family members (Article 2(2)). 
The spouse and dependent children are entitled to take up any employed or self-employed 
activity anywhere within the territory of the host Member State (Article 2(2)). 
By implicit reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is stipulated that students 
may not, on the basis of the Directive, claim the payment of maintenance grants by the 
host Member State (Article 3). 
The right of residence shall remain for as long as beneficiaries of that right fulfil the 
conditions laid down in Article 1 (Article 4). 
15 COM(85)292 final, OJ C 171, 10.7.1985, p. 8. 
16 The Court of Justice ruled, as the European Parliament had maintained in its application and the 
Commission had held in its statement in intervention, that the Directive should have been based on the 
second paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty and not on Article 235, the legal basis on which the 
Council had approved the Directive. See footnote 11 above. 
17 COM(93) 209 final 
18 Case C-357/89, ECR 1992 1-1027. 
7 
2. Transposition of the Directives into national law 
Following an examination of the transposition measures adopted by the Member States, 
the Commission was obliged to launch infringement proceedings against almost all 
Member States for incorrect transposition of one or more provisions of Directives 
90/364, 90/365 and 93/96. 
2.1. Adherence to the deadline for transposition laid down in the Directives 
Pursuant to Article 5 of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366, the Member States were 
required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary 
to comply with the Directives not later than 30 June 1992. 
Only three Member States (the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain) met the deadline laid 
down in the Directives, adopting their transposition measures during the month of June 
1992. 
The Commission commenced infringement proceedings against the other Member States 
for non-transposition, and letters of formal notice were sent to them in October 1992. 
The infringement proceedings were limited to Directives 90/364 and 90/365 in view of 
the action for annulment of Directive 90/366 instituted by the European Parliament on 28 
September 1990. 
Following the letters of formal notice, the infringement proceedings for non-transposition 
of Directives 90/364 and 90/365 progressed at variable speeds in the different Member 
States. The Commission decided to terminate the proceedings as and when the Member 
States adopted the transposition measures19. 
However, the proceedings against Germany were not terminated. When no satisfactory 
reply was received from Germany to the reasoned opinion delivered to it in September 
1993, the Commission referred the matter to the Court of Justice on 24 March 1995. The 
German Government considered that there were no grounds for the action, emphasising 
that Paragraph 2(2) of the Ausldndergesetz (Law on Foreigners) evoked the primacy of 
Community law over national law. It also pointed out that the competent administrative 
authorities in the Lander had been informed of the need to comply fully with the 
Directives. 
In a judgment delivered on 20 March 199720, the Court of Justice ruled against Germany 
for not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions necessary for transposing into national law Directives 90/364 and 90/365. The 
Court fully concurred with the arguments put forward by the Commission in the course 
of the proceedings. The Court thus ruled that "the mere fact that Paragraph 2(2) of the 
Ausldndergesetz contains a general reference to Community law does not amount to 
transposition ensuring in a sufficiently clear and precise manner the actual 
implementation in full of Directives 90/364 and 90/365, both of which are intended to 
19 The dates on which the transposition measures were adopted are given in the table in Annex 1 to this 
report. 
20 Case C-96/95, Commission v Germany, ECR 1997,1-1653. 
8 
confer rights on nationals from other Member States" (para. 36), and observed that "the 
fact that the competent national administrative authorities were informed of the 
implications of the two Directives in question cannot be regarded as satisfying, by itself, 
the requirements of publicity, clarity and certainty as to the legal situations governed by 
those Directives" (para. 39). 
In the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden, their obligations under the European 
Economic Area Agreement which entered into force on 1 January 1994 meant that they 
should have transposed the Directives prior to joining the European Union on 1 January 
1995. 
On the right of residence for students, after the Court's judgment of 7 July 199221 
annulling Directive 90/366, the Commission was obliged to review the question of 
bringing possible infringement proceedings for non-transposition. 
Given that the Court had specified in its judgment that the effects of Directives 90/366 
were to be maintained on a provisional basis until it was replaced by a Directive with an 
appropriate legal basis, the Commission considered that the obligation to transpose the 
Directive remained in spite of its formal annulation. At the beginning of April 1993, the 
Commission sent letters to the Member States which still had not transposed Directive 
90/366 informing them of its intention to commence infringement proceedings against 
them. The adoption by the Council on 29 October 1993 of Directive 93/96 on the right of 
residence of students22, the content of which was almost identical to that of Directive 
90/366 which it replaced, gave rise to a novel situation with regard to the opening of 
infringement proceedings for non-transposition: from that date on the Commission had to 
base its action on the new Directive 93/96 which, in accordance with its Article 6, was to 
be transposed by 31 December 1993. 
In February 1994, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Germany, Belgium 
and France, the only Member States which still had not transposed the Directive on the 
right of residence for students. The proceedings against Belgium and France were 
terminated in 1994 and 1995 respectively. A reasoned opinion was sent to Germany in 
July 1995, followed by a supplementary reasoned opinion in October 1996. The 
proceedings were only terminated in 1997, following the entry into force of the 
Verordnung (Decree) of 17 July 1997. 
Apart from Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands, which fulfilled their obligations 
within the prescribed periods, all the other Member States23 lagged behind to 
varying degrees in transposing Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366-93/96, despite 
the small number of provisions involved and the lack of specific legal difficulties in 
transposing them into national law. This reluctance on the part of the Member 
States to transpose the Directives and consequently to extend the right of residence 
to new categories of persons is probably linked to the legacy of the past. For thirty 
years, the freedom of movement of persons was managed from an economic 
21 
See footnote 11 above. 
22 See footnote 10 above. 
23 In this case the "old" Member States, the Twelve. 
perspective, and this notion of functional mobility has proved an obstacle to the 
emergence of a personal right to freedom of movement, independent of economic 
considerations. 
2.2. Compliance of the transposition measures with the Directives 
2.2.2. Incorrectly transposed provisions: 
- The types of resources and supporting documentation required of retired persons and 
other non-economically-active persons: 
The first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directives 90/365 and 90/364 states that the 
right of residence of the persons concerned (retired persons and non-economically-active 
persons respectively) is subject to the requirement that they "have sufficient resources to 
avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during 
their period of residence". Subparagraphs 2 and 3 deal with the method to be used to 
determine the level above which the resources are to be deemed sufficient. Nowhere do 
the Directives specify what types of resources are to be taken into consideration, nor do 
they mention what supporting documentation can be required by the competent 
authorities. 
In view of the wording of Article 1(1) of Directives 90/365 and 90/364, and given the 
fact that the Directives contain provisions which allow the host Member States to 
effectively check on the ongoing availability of resources and to take action in the event 
that the persons concerned no longer have sufficient resources, the Commission holds 
that Article 1(1) of the Directives is not correctly transposed by national measures which 
arbitrarily limit the types of resources that can be taken into account or impose excessive 
demands with regard to the types of supporting documentation accepted. 
The Commission commenced infringement proceedings against those Member States 
(France and Italy) which in its view had incorrectly transposed Article 1(1) of Directives 
90/365 and 90/364 to varying degrees. 
- Revalidation of the residence permits of retired persons and non-economically-active 
persons: 
Article 2(1) of Directives 90/364 and 90/365 states that the right of residence shall be 
evidenced by means of the issue of a residence permit, the validity of which may be 
limited to five years, and specifies that "the Member States may, when they deem it to be 
necessary, require revalidation of the permit at the end of the first two years of 
residence". 
Drawing on the preparatory work for the Directives, the Commission sees revalidation as 
an opportunity for the competent authorities in the host Member States to check up on the 
administrative position of certain persons where, at the time of their initial request for a 
residence permit, there were doubts about their ability in the longer term to continue to 
meet the sickness insurance conditions laid down in Article 1 of the Directives. In view 
of this safeguard, the Commission considered that systematic revalidation of the 
residence permits of retired persons and other non-economically-active persons after two 
years or imposing a two-year limit on the validity of their residence permits at the outset 
10 
amounted to incorrect transposition of the Directives. Furthermore, while restricting the 
validity of residence permits to two years was already in itself contrary to the 
Directives, some Member States' legislation gave the competent administrative 
authorities the option of applying such a restriction but provided no guarantees that such 
a restriction would be limited only to cases where the person's sickness insurance 
position was difficult to assess at the time of their initial request for a residence permit. 
The Commission brought infringement proceedings against a number of Member States 
(Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom) for incorrect transposition, to 
varying degrees, of Article 2(1) of Directives 90/364 and 90/365. 
- Sickness insurance cover for retired persons, non-economically-active persons and 
students: 
Article 1 of the three Directives makes the right of residence subject to having "sickness 
insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State". Given the very general 
wording of this provision, the Commission is of the view that the persons concerned 
should be given a variety of ways of fulfilling the sickness insurance condition, provided 
of course that they meet the criterion on the level of risks covered. Thus, for example, the 
persons entitled to sickness insurance cover would include the dependants of insured 
persons, and persons who are members of a private social insurance scheme either in 
their country of origin, in the host Member State or in another Member State, etc. 
Infringement proceedings were instituted against the following countries for incorrect 
transposition of the sickness insurance provision in the Directives: 
- France, because its legislation and administrative practice obliges students from other 
Member States to join the social security scheme for students in France if they have no 
social insurance or are not dependants of an insured person and are unable to supply a 
certificate issued pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and No 574/72. 
- Luxembourg, whose legislation appeared to be too restrictive with regard to the types of 
sickness insurance that non-economically-active persons could take out. 
- The declaration of students' resources: 
Under the terms of Article 1 of Directive 93/96, the Member States shall recognise the 
right of residence "for any student who is a national of a Member State ... where the 
student assures the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such 
alternative means as the student may choose that are at least equivalent, that he has 
sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on ... the host Member State during their 
period of residence24". Given the crystal clear wording of this provision, and in view of 
the background to it, the Commission considers that national transposition measures are 
contrary to this provision where, for example, they deny students the right to make a 
declaration of their resources, oblige them to provide evidence thereof, or require a 
minimum level of resources which must be backed up in the supporting documentation or 
referred to in the declaration. 
24 The terms are identical to those used in Article 1 of Directive 90/366. 
11 
The Commission brought infringement proceedings against those Member States 
(Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the 
United Kingdom) which, in its view, had incorrectly transposed Article 1 of Directive 
93/96 to varying degrees. 
- The formalities relating to the period of stay: 
Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 refer to Article 3 of Directive 68/360, which states 
that entry into the territory of the Member States shall be allowed simply on production 
of a valid identity card or passport. As a rule, the authorities should not ask persons 
entering their territory questions on, for example, the destination or purpose of their stay, 
or the financial means at their disposal25. 
In Finland, a provision in an Interior Ministry Decree gave the authorities blanket 
permission to check whether Member State nationals seeking to enter Finland met the 
conditions for residence. 
The Commission considered that applying such a provision to the beneficiaries of the 
three Directives was contrary to Community law. 
- The residence permit: 
Article 2 of the three Directives states that exercise of the right of residence shall be 
evidenced by means of the issue of a document called a residence permit. The residence 
permit is therefore a separate document and not a stamp in the holder's passport. 
Infringement proceedings were brought against Sweden because, under Swedish law, a 
stamp in the holder's passport could be used as evidence of the right of residence. 
2.2.3. The course and outcome of the infringement proceedings for incorrect 
transposition: 
When the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against a Member State, it 
has, in principle, followed one and the same procedure relating to one or more complaints 
relating to one or more of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96. 
The outcome of the proceedings is given below, while the summary table in Annex II to 
the report traces their chronological development, Member State by Member State: 
- Netherlands: the infringement proceedings were terminated. It emerged that, following 
the new Decree on Foreigners of 30 December 1993 and the 1996 amendment to the 
Circular on Foreigners, students can now choose to make a declaration of their resources. 
- Greece: on the basis of clarifications provided in response to the letter of formal notice, 
the proceedings were terminated. The Greek authorities confirmed that the residence 
permits issued to retired persons and non-economically-active persons were valid for a 
25 Judgment of 30.5.1991, Case C-68/89, Commission v Netherlands, ECR 19911-2637. 
12 
period of five years and were only subject to revalidation in exceptional cases, and that 
instructions had been given to the competent authorities to this effect. 
- Denmark: the infringement proceedings were terminated following the amendments 
made in Interior Ministry Decree No 684 of 12 July 1996 to the earlier Decree No 761 of 
22 August 1994. The outcome of these amendments is that residence permits issued to 
retired persons and non-economically-active persons are valid for five years and that 
revalidation is required only where it is deemed necessary. 
- Spain: the proceedings were terminated following Decreto Real No 1710/1997 of 14 
November 1997 amending Decreto Real No 766/1992. These amendments mean that 
residence permits issued to retired persons and non-economically-active persons are valid 
for five years and that students are entitled to make a declaration of their resources. 
- Italy: in the absence of a satisfactory response to the letter of formal notice and the 
reasoned opinion, the Commission has referred the matter to the Court of Justice. 
- France: in the absence of a satisfactory response to the letters of formal notice and the 
reasoned opinion, the Commission has referred the matter to the Court of Justice26. The 
specific proceedings relating to sickness insurance for students27 are at the reasoned 
opinion stage. 
- Ireland: the infringement proceedings were terminated after entry into force of the 
European Communities (Right of Residence for Non-Economically Active Persons) 
Regulations 1997. Under the new legislation, students are no longer required to provide 
evidence of their resources. 
- United Kingdom: the proceedings were terminated after amendments were introduced 
in the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Order 1997. As a result of 
these amendments, students are entitled to make a declaration of their resources, and 
revalidation of the residence permits of retired and non-economically-active persons is 
limited to cases where it is deemed necessary and does not affect the initial five-year 
period of validity of the residence permit. 
- Portugal; the proceedings were terminated after the enactment of Enabling Law No 8/98 
of 13 February 1998 and the Decree Law N° 250/98. The amendments made by this 
instrument to Decree Law No 60/93 of 3 March 1993 mean that residence permits issued 
to retired and non-economically-active persons are valid for five years. 
- Luxembourg: the infringement proceedings were terminated after the Grand Ducal 
Regulation of 3 June 1996 amending the Grand Ducal Regulation of 28 March 1972 was 
passed, meaning firstly that students now have the option of making a declaration of their 
resources and are no longer required to provide evidence thereof (this was the case under 
the previous legislation), and secondly that non-economically-active persons now have 
26 In the course of the proceedings before the Court of Justice, the Commission was informed of a Decision 
taken by France's Council of State on 3 October 1997 — GISTI (Groupe d'Information et de Soutien 
des Immigres) - cancelling some of the provisions of the Decision of 6 April 1995 which were also 
referred to in the Commission's action. 
27 See Section 2.2.2 above 
13 
greater choice in terms of the types of sickness insurance schemes that they may belong 
to. 
- Finland: the infringement proceedings were terminated following amendments to the 
laws governing checks on persons entering Finland and checks on students' resources. 
- Sweden: the infringement proceedings were terminated after the Decree on Foreigners 
was amended: the amended text removes the differences in treatment betweeen family 
members depending on whether they are nationals of an EEA country or not, and clarifies 
that residence permits are issued in the form of a separate document. 
- Germany and Austria: infringement proceedings were initiated against these two 
Member States for incorrect transposition of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96. The 
proceedings are at the letter of formal notice stage. 
With regard to Belgium, examination of the transposition measures did not show up any 
problem of compliance with the provisions of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 
themselves. However, other infringement proceedings relating to the compliance of 
Belgian legislation with Directive 68/360 on the right of residence of employed persons28 
also had implications for students, retired persons and other non-economically-active 
persons, since these proceedings related, among other things, to Article 4 of Directive 
68/360 (procedures and deadlines for the issue of residence permits for employed 
persons), the content of which is similar to Article 2(1) of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 
93/96. The proceedings also related to Article 9 of Directive 68/360 (cost of residence 
permits), to which Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 specifically refer. 
The infringement proceedings resulted in a ruling against Belgium by the Court of Justice 
on 20 February 1997.29 The Court of Justice's findings concerning the infringement of 
Directive 68/360 with regard to the procedures for issuing residence permits (system of 
successive registration certificates) and the cost of the permits must be seen as applying 
by analogy to students, retired persons and other non-economically-active persons. 
To comply with the Court's judgment, Belgium amended its legislation.30 An 
examination of whether this new legislation complies with Directive 68/360 and 
Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366 is under way. 
The transposition of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366-93/96 gave rise to 
infringement proceedings against almost all Member States. Nevertheless, the 
Commission welcomes the fact that the vast majority of the infringement 
proceedings had a positive outcome. The Member States acknowledged that the 
Commission's arguments were well-founded, and 'corrected' their transposition 
measures, some more quickly than others. Thus the infringement proceedings for 
incorrect transposition were terminated in ten cases, while two proceedings are still 
28 See footnote 13 above. 
29 Case C-344/95, Commission v Belgium. 
30 Royal Decree of 8 May 1998 amending the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on the entry, residence, 
establishment and deportation of foreigners. 
14 
under way, at letter of formal notice stage. Only in two cases has the Commission 
referred the matter to the Court of Justice. 
However, the Commission acknowledges that the infringement proceedings 
progressed quite slowly and is aware of the disadvantages of this: for too long, EU 
citizens have been denied some of their rights or been faced with unjustified 
administrative difficulties due to the incorrect transposition of the Directives. The 
Commission's decision to speed up its internal procedures should mean that 
breaches of Community law can be stopped more quickly in the future. 
3. Assessment of the practical application of the Directives 
3.1. Citizens' experiences: 
The letters, complaints and petitions to the European Parliament which are passed on to 
the Commission constitute an invaluable, if incomplete, source of information for the 
Commission departments on the practical application of the Directives. For the purposes 
of the assessment, the Commission also requested information from institutions which, 
by virtue of their work, are particularly well placed to collect data on the experience of 
students31 and retired persons.32 A survey was also carried out of former Commission 
staff who, on retirement, went to live in a Member State other than their country of origin 
or the country of their last appointment prior to retirement. These various sources of 
information, to which must be added the observations of the Eurojus network of advisors 
as well as information from the Citizens orientation services,33 have highlighted the 
following areas as problematic. 
- The resources of retired persons and other non-economically-active persons: 
The first difficulty encountered by retired and non-economically-active persons is in 
determining the level of resources that they are required to have available. 
Directives 90/364 and 90/365 do not lay down a minimum level of resources but 
establish a mechanism for determining whether they are sufficient or insufficient. It is up 
to the Member States to give practical application to this mechanism. However, it turns 
out that most of the transposition measures merely repeat the wording of the Directives, 
with no further specifications, or refer to a provision in social legislation laying down a 
minimum level of resources or allowances which is used to determine whether retired and 
other non-economically-active persons fulfil the resources condition. 
A second difficulty relates to the supporting documentation that retired and non-
economically-active persons must provide as evidence of their resources. 
Quite apart from cases of disproportionate requirements arising from the incorrect 
transposition of the Directives,34 the information sent by citizens to the Commission 
31 National Erasmus agencies. 
32 Eurolink Age. 
33 See point 4.1 below 
34 The infringement proceedings instituted in this regard are discussed in Section 2.2 above 
15 
shows that the competent administrations quite often require evidence of resources (bank 
statements for the preceding months, bank declaration showing the account balance, tax 
declaration, etc.), which more often than not are excessive in view of the Directives. 
In view of the fact that the Directives make the right of residence subject to the condition 
of having sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social security system 
of the host Member State, and taking account of the fact that the assessment of 
sufficiency is made by reference to an objective threshold, the Commission considers that 
the national authorities should only request evidence of resources up to this threshold. It 
appears that in these disproportionate situations, the administrative authorities 
responsible for residence matters examine the entire financial and/or property situation 
(e.g. bank statements from the preceding months) of retired persons and non-
economically-active persons applying for a residence permit. The Commission also 
notes that some supporting documents (e.g. bank declarations showing the account 
balance) only reflect the situation at a given moment in time and cannot really be 
considered as proof that such a level of resources will be maintained in the future. 
With regard to the specific case of beneficiaries of Directive 90/365, the Commission 
observes that a specific characteristic of old age and retirement pensions is their stability. 
Thus, in the Commission's opinion, requiring many types of evidence of resources is 
particularly disproportionate in the case of pensioners. 
- The length of residence of retired and non-economically-active persons: 
Some retired and non-economically-active persons usually reside in another Member 
State for several months each year (for example during the winter period). It seems that 
many of them do not apply for a residence permit, even when staying for more than three 
months. In most cases they do this to avoid inconvenient administrative procedures and 
red tape. It also seems that, when the administrative authorities receive applications for 
residence permits from people in such situations, they only issue them with permits for 
the duration of their intended period of residence, whereas Article 2 of Directives 90/364 
and 90/365 states that the validity may not be less than five years. 
- Problems linked to the sickness insurance condition: 
It would appear that retired and other non-economically-active persons quite often find it 
hard to have their sickness insurance policies recognised by the authorities in the host 
Member State. The people who most often experience these problems are civil servants35 
and people with a private sickness insurance policy. 
According to information received recently by the Commission, two Member States went 
so far as to oblige retired and other non-economically-active persons to join the sickness 
insurance scheme of the host Member State, even though they already had sickness 
insurance cover. This problem is similar to that experienced by students in France.36 
35 The problems experienced by civil servants should now be regarded as resolved since the adoption of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and 
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 with a view to extending them to cover special schemes for civil 
servants. 
36 See Section 2.2.2 above 
16 
- The level of coverage provided by the sickness insurance policy: 
The Commission's attention has been drawn to a problem experienced by some retired 
people who, after moving to another Member State, find out that their sickness benefits in 
kind are more limited than the benefits they were entitled to in their Member State of 
origin. This is a reflection of the general rule whereby sickness benefits in kind are 
provided in accordance with the legislation in force in the Member State of residence. 
Furthermore, it is often impossible to maintain benefits from supplementary insurance 
taken out previously in the Member State of origin (insurers' fears about the extent of 
their risk because they do not know what level of benefits is provided in the other 
Member State). Nor is it usually possible to take out such insurance in the Member State 
where the retired person has just established residency (person too old to take out such 
supplementary insurance). 
- Taxation: 
Some retired and otherwise economically inactive persons experience difficulties in 
understanding the tax implications of their establishment in another Member State and in 
familiarising themselves with the characteristics of the taxation system in the host 
Member State. A certain number of complaints have been addressed to the Commission 
services on this subject. 
- Contamination by Directives 90/364 and 90/365 in other areas: 
The Commission has been informed of a number of cases where the administrative 
authorities responsible for processing applications for residence permits required proof of 
resources from persons who were neither retired nor non-economically-active. Those 
concerned were either employees or self-employed persons or persons who were still 
resident in the Member State where they had last worked. However, the legislation 
applicable to such persons37 states that they are not obliged to provide evidence of their 
resources. In the cases that it has been informed about, the Commission has drawn the 
attention of the Member States to this type of "contamination" by Directives 90/364 and 
90/365. 
Another type of contamination is specific to Directive 90/364. In the past, i.e. prior to 
Directive 90/364, Community nationals married to nationals of their host Member State 
were not covered by Community law if they were not engaged in an economic activity. 
Their residence rights were covered by national legislation on foreigners. In some cases, 
this legislation contained specific provisions on the spouses of nationals. Since the 
transposition of Directive 90/364 into national legislation, Community nationals who are 
married to nationals of the host Member State and are not engaged in an economic 
activity in that State, have an autonomous right of residence on the basis of the Directive. 
In practice, however, the competent administrations do apply the provisions of the 
Directive to such persons. When checking on the resource requirement, they proceed in 
the same way as for a standard application for a residence permit submitted by an 
unmarried person not engaged in an economic activity. 
37 Directives 68/360 and 73/148 for employed and self-employed persons; Regulation No 1251/70 and 
Directive 75/34 for persons who remain in the Member State of their previous economic activity. 
17 
The Commission has been informed of cases where the competent administration insisted 
on obtaining evidence of independent resources from the person concerned and refused to 
take into account the fact that their resources were the same as their spouse's. In other 
cases, the administration required the person concerned to provide a financial guarantee 
or an undertaking from their spouse to support them. It is difficult to justify this manner 
of checking on the resources condition, as illustrated by the two cases outlined above, in 
view of the provisions contained in Directive 90/364, and it is incompatible with the 
general obligation on the Member States, under Article 9 of Directive 68/360,38 to 
simplify the formalities and procedures for obtaining residence permits to the greatest 
possible extent. 
- The right of residence for some students: 
Students taking part in programmes such as Erasmus, Socrates and Leonardo stay in the 
host Member State for a few months, mostly for between three months and a year (if the 
intended period of residence is longer than three months, EU citizens are required under 
Community law to apply for a residence permit). Experience has shown that the 
formalities often drag on for a long time. Quite often, students either do not receive their 
residence permit at all or only receive it at the end of their stay, shortly before their return 
to their home Member State. While the right of residence does not depend on a residence 
permit being issued, which is only declaratory in nature, such a state of affairs is 
nevertheless unhealthy. On the basis of reports from their colleagues or predecessors on 
these programmes, students are not exactly encouraged to engage in an apparently 
pointless procedure. Nor do the competent administrations seem to see the importance of 
issuing students with residence permits. 
- Residence permits for students: 
Students are not happy with having to pay a fee every time they renew their residence 
permit in some Member States. 
3.2. Practical application of the Directives by the Member State administrations 
In order to carry out an in-depth examination of the practical application of the 
Directives, information was required from those involved in implementing Directives 
90/364, 90/365 and 93/96, i.e. the competent administrations in the Member States. To 
this end, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States asking for different 
types of information on the application of the Directives. The main headings of the 
questionnaire are covered below, with a short summary of the replies from the Member 
States (Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg did not reply to the questionnaire). 
1 To which Article 2(2) of Directive 90/364 refers. 
18 
3.2.1. The resources of retired persons and other non-economically-active persons: 
- What categories of personal income are taken into account by the competent 
authorities: capital gains? rental income? royalties? other? Does the origin of these 
resources (Member State of residence, Member State of origin, other Member State, third 
country) determine whether they are taken into account? 
Examination of the replies to the questionnaire confirmed that almost all the Member 
States took a wide variety of resources into account and that the origin of the resources 
was not in itself relevant to the determination of sufficiency of resources. The overriding 
factor for several Member States was whether the person concerned really could access 
the resources in question freely. 
- What categories of resources other than personal income are taken into account: 
financial support from relatives? from the person's cohabitant? from third parties? other 
resources? 
The Member States' replies differed on the question of whether resources other than 
personal income were taken into consideration. 
Belgium does not take such resources into account under Directive 90/364. Sweden 
takes the same position on principle and does not take into account contributions from 
relatives unless the money is paid into a bank account which the person concerned can 
access freely. Spain only takes financial contributions from relatives into account. It 
should be noted that the Netherlands does not view an undertaking from the person's 
cohabitant as constituting sufficient resources. 
When assessing resources from relatives or third parties, the Member States require many 
different types of supporting documentation. 
- Do the competent authorities take account of factors which, while not resources in the 
strict sense (e.g. ownership of the accommodation or free accommodation), constitute 
material benefits which go towards meeting the needs of those concerned? If so, how? 
When assessing the resources requirement, Austria, Finland, France, Portugal, the United 
Kingdom, Sweden and, to a certain extent, Denmark take account of the fact that the 
persons concerned own their accommodation or live there free of charge. Spain does not 
take the material benefits mentioned in the questionnaire into consideration. 
3.2.2. Students' resources: 
Since the entry into force of the transposition measures for Directives 90/366-93/96, how 
many students have become a burden on the social assistance authorities, and what steps 
have been taken? 
None of the Member States provided data on the number of students that have become a 
burden on the social assistance authorities in the course of their stay. 
19 
3.2.3. The cost for students of renewing their residence permits: 
How much does a residence permit cost? Is the same amount charged every time the 
permit is renewed? 
Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and the United Kingdom provide residence permits 
free of charge. Of the remaining Member States, some charge the same fee for each 
renewal as for the first permit (Belgium, Spain, Finland and Portugal), while Austria 
charges a slightly reduced fee for renewals and the Netherlands only requires payment for 
the initial residence permit. 
20 
4. Conclusions: 
The various observations made above on the application of the Directives should not 
cause us to lose sight of the fact that there has been a high level of uptake by the new 
categories of beneficiaries - students, retired persons and non-economically-active 
persons - of the opportunities provided by freedom of movement. Even though most 
Member States have been unable to provide statistics in this regard, the phenomenon is 
definitely real and can be demonstrated, however imperfectly, by examining a number of 
indicators. 
Based on the experiences of both citizens and the competent administrations in the 
practical application of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366-93/96, the Commission has 
drawn the following conclusions as part of its contribution to greater freedom of 
movement for students, retired and non-economically-active persons. 
4.1. - Step up the effort to inform citizens: 
The letters and complaints received by the Commission show that citizens lack 
information on the exact extent of their rights in the area of free movement. This lack of 
awareness can work in both directions: citizens are often unaware of their real rights but 
also, conversely, can be convinced that they have rights which in reality are of minor 
importance or are even non-existent. 
Among other things, the smooth operation of the Internal Market in the area of freedom 
of movement of persons depends on the quality of information given to citizens. The 
Commission is aware of its role in this regard and has already undertaken initiatives in 
the past. 
As part of the Citizens First initiative launched jointly with the European Parliament in 
November 1996 with the aim of making citizens aware of their rights in Europe and in 
particular in the Single Market, the Commission produced a Guide entitled Living in 
another country of the European Union, which gives EU citizens an overview of their 
rights in the area of residency. Information on the right of residence for students has also 
been included in the Guide "Studying, training and doing research in another country of 
the European Union". As a supplement to these Guides, the Commission produced 
Factsheets on the individual countries in cooperation with the Member States. These 
widely available Guides and Factsheets39 are one of the means used to combat the lack of 
information of citizens. Thus each national Factsheet includes data on the minimum 
amount of resources required in the Member State in question.40 The Commission's 
information effort has also included setting up a Signpost Service through which 
citizens41 can contact experts to clarify issues in relation to their rights, particularly in the 
area of residence rights. 
39 The Guides and Factsheets, available in the 11 official languages of the Union, can be obtained free of 
charge by calling a freephone number in each Member State. They are also available on the Internet 
(http://europa.eu.int/citizens). 
40 See Section 3.1. 
41 Via the Internet and freephone numbers (see footnote 39 above). 
21 
One person in five who contacted the Signpost Service raised the issue of residence rights 
and practical difficulties with national administrations. A successor programme to the 
Citizens First initiative was launched at the Cardiff European Council with the aim of 
setting up a permanent mechanism for Dialogue with citizens and business. The 
Dialogue thus integrates the work done under the Citizens First initiative into a 
permanent information mechanism. 
The aim is to provide direct and easy access to information on rights ensuing from the 
Internal Market, and at the same time to give everyone the chance to ask questions, talk 
about their experiences and make suggestions. 
Apart from specific information campaigns, other avenues also need to be explored. For 
example, the Commission's answers to parliamentary questions do not really reach the 
general public, despite the fact that they are published in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities. Consideration could be given to ensuring swift dissemination of 
answers to parliamentary questions to interested parties (Member States, associations, 
etc.). 
4.2. - Continue to ensure strict compliance with existing Community law: 
The Commission monitors administrative practice closely by pursuing the infringement 
proceedings it has launched for incorrect transposition of the Directives and, where 
necessary, commencing new infringement proceedings. 
For example, the Commission departments are currently closely examining various 
national practices relating to the evidence of resources required42 as well as a series of 
complaints from students from which it would appear the option of making a declaration 
of resources is not being granted in practice, even though this is specifically provided for 
in the national legislation.43 
The Commission will continue this work in the future in order to ensure compliance with 
Community law, not only at the level of legislative standards and regulations but also in 
terms of the day-to-day administrative practices with which citizens are faced. 
In addition to the procedures and formalities relating to the actual residence, the 
Commission will ensure that the status of citizen of the Union44 is fully adhered to as 
regards students, retired persons and other non-economically-active persons. In this 
context, checks will have to be made to ensure that Article 6 of the Treaty prohibiting 
discrimination on grounds of nationality is being genuinely applied to those categories of 
persons, except of course for the derogations provided for in the Directives applying to 
them in the field of sickness insurance and resources. 
42 See Section 3.1 above, p. 13. 
43 In some cases this possibility was inserted into national legislation in the wake of the infringement 
proceedings taken by the Commission. 
44 See note 12 above. 
22 
4.3. - Make Community legislation on free movement of persons clearer and 
restructure it around the notion of European citizenship: 
The addition to existing secondary legislation of three Directives applicable to new 
categories of persons has increased the number of instruments in the area of freedom of 
movement and has made Community law less transparent for both citizens and the 
administrations. 
The Commission has already observed45 that, apart from the practical disadvantages of an 
increase in the number of legal instruments, these should be reviewed in the light of the 
introduction into Article 8a of the EC Treaty of the notion of Union citizenship, leading 
to a revision of the "right of freedom of movement and residence in the context of the 
rules on citizenship".46 The European Parliament has also come out in favour of this 
revision work,47 which will have to include substantive amendments. Some of the 
amendments, which pertain to the three Directives under review, are outlined below. 
4.4. - Begin discussions on substantive changes to the existing legislation: 
- The resources of retired persons and other non-economically-active persons: 
The resources condition laid down in Directives 90/364 and 90/365 leads in practice to 
advance checks (requirement to produce various supporting documents) which are often 
excessive, particularly in view of the fact that a revalidation mechanism is provided for in 
Article 1(2) and that a clear link is established in Article 3 between maintaining the right 
of residence and meeting the conditions with regard to resources and sickness insurance 
on an ongoing basis. In some cases, these advance checks even run the risk of infringing 
personal privacy. 
Furthermore, the survey carried out by the Commission shows that the administrations in 
several Member States have difficulty in assessing whether or not resources are 
sufficient. 
In view of these various factors, the Commission intends to examine whether the 
principle of a declaration of resources, similar to the declaration that students can make, 
could be extended to retired persons and other non-economically-active persons.48 
- Residence permits for retired persons and non-economically-active persons: 
Practice has shown that many retired persons (and to a lesser extent other non-
economically-active persons) have a rotating lifestyle, residing in turn in their Member 
State of origin and in another Member State. Under Community law,49 absences of 
45 Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up to the 
recommendations of the High-Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons, 1.7.1998, 
COM( 1998)403 final. 
46 See p. 2 of the above Communication. 
47 See points 3 and 4 of the Resolution of 2 July 1998 on the second Commission report on citizenship of 
the Union. 
48 The Report from the High-Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons (Veil Report) presented to the 
Commission on 18 March 1997 suggests this solution (Chapter I, Section II, Subsection 1(d)). 
49 See Section 1.1., p. 4. 
23 
23 
longer than six months from the host Member State affect the validity of the residence 
permit. 
In view of the difficulties experienced by retired and non-economically-active persons in 
particular, the Commission will review the question of the effect of periods of absence on 
the validity of residence permits. 
- The cost of residence permits for students: 
Under Directive 93/96 in its current wording, students from one Member State who 
undertake their entire course of study at a university in another Member State can be 
required by the host country to pay the same fee for each annual renewal of their 
residence permit as for the initial residence permit. Conversely, short-stay students are 
obliged to apply for a residence permit if they are staying for more than three months, 
and can be required to pay the same fee as is charged for a standard permit valid for five 
years. 
The Commission is aware that student mobility is determined by the costs for those 
concerned and it will look into whether a proposal that the initial residence permit and 
subsequent renewals be granted to students free of charge would be appropriate. 
- The scope of Directive 93/96: 
The current wording of Article 1, which refers to recognised educational establishments, 
has the effect of excluding from the scope of the Directive persons who are in training in 
institutions other than recognised establishments. 
In a bid to ensure that mobility for people in training is not hindered by obstacles relating 
to the right of residence, the Commission will look into the possibility of clarifying the 
scope of the right of residence for students, while paying particular attention to the 
administrative difficulties currently facing trainees and persons involved in volunteer 
projects 
24 
Annex 1 
NATIONAL TRANSPOSITION MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVES 90/364, 90/365 AND 
90/366-93/96 
Member 
States Transposition measures 
Belgium Transposition of Directives 90/364 and 90/365: 
- Arrete royal du 7 decembre 1992 modifiant la loi du 15 decembre 1980 
sur 1'acces au territoire, le sejour, l'etablissement et l'eloignement des 
etrangers, Moniteur beige du 22.1.1993, p. 1052; 
- Koninklijk besluit van 7 december 1992 tot wijziging van de wet van 15 
december 1980 betreffende de toegang to het grondgebied, het verblijf, de 
vestiging en de verwijdering van vreemdelingen, Belgisch Staatsblad 
22.1.1993, p.1052. 
- Arrete royal du 22 decembre 1992 modifiant 1'Arrete royal du 8 octobre 
1981 sur 1'acces au territoire, le sejour, l'etablissement et l'eloignement 
des etrangers, Moniteur beige du 22.1.1993, p. 1053; 
- Koninklijk besluit van 22 december 1992 tot wijziging van het 
Koninklijk besluit van 8 oktober 1981 betreffende de toegang to het 
grondgebied, het verblijf, de vestiging en de verwijdering van 
vreemdelingen, Belgisch Staatsblad 22.1.1993, p. 1053. 
Transposition of Directive 93/96: 
- Arrete royal du 22 fevrier 1995 modifiant la loi du 15 decembre 1980 
sur 1'acces au territoire, le sejour, l'etablissement et l'eloignement des 
etrangers, Moniteur beige du 15.3.1995, p. 5784; 
- Koninklijk besluit van 22 februari 1995 tot wijziging van de wet van 15 
december 1980 betreffende de toegang to het grondgebied, het verblijf, de 
vestiging en de verwijdering van vreemdelingen, Belgisch Staatsblad 
15.3.1995, p. 5784; 
- Arrete royal du 22 fevrier 1995 modifiant 1'Arrete royal du 8 octobre 
1981 sur 1'acces au territoire, le sejour, l'etablissement et l'eloignement 
des etrangers, Moniteur beige du 15.3.1995, p. 5784; 
- Koninklijk besluit van 22 februari 1995 tot wijziging van het Koninklijk 
besluit van 8 oktober 1981 betreffende de toegang to het grondgebied, 
het verblijf, de vestiging en de verwijdering van vreemdelingen, Belgisch 
Staatsblad 15.3.1995, p. 5785. 
Denmark - Justitsministeriets bekendtgorelse nr. 575 af 26. Juni 1992; 
- Indenrigsministeriets bekendtgorelse nr. 761 af 22. August 1994; 
- Indenrigsministeriets bekendtgorelse nr. 684 af 12. Juli 1996 (*). 
Germany - Verordnung vom 17/07/1997 iiber die allgemeine Freizugigkeit von 
Staatsangehorigen der Mitgliedstaaten der Europaischen Union 
(Freizugigkeitsverordnung/EG - FreiziigV/EG), Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I 
vom 22/07/1997 Seite 1810. 
25 
Greece 
Spain 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg EIpoeSpiKo 8idxaYM.a 278/92, EiaoSoq KOU 8ia(iovfi crnv EKkada t>7rnK6cov 
Kpaxrov (j.sX,(bv xr\c, EOK, 7tou 5SV SXOUV TO 8iKaico|j.a auxo pdaei aXk(ov 
8iaxd^Ecov TOP KOIVOTIKOIJ Sncaiou r\ a7ioi>5d£oi)v rj s^ouv 7iai3asi xr\v 
S7iaYYe^|xaTiKri TOUC; 8paaTr|pi6TT|Ta coc, naaGooToi fj {j.r| HICTGCOTOI 
spya^6|j,8voi, as cruujiopcpooori npoq TI<; OSriyfei; TOP St)|a,pouA,lo\) 
Eupco7iaiKG)v KoivoTfiTcov U7t'api0|j.. 90/364/EOK, 90/366/EOK Kai 
90/365/EOK (0>EK A' 144 n^ 28r|q ADYOUOTOT) 1992, ask. 5). 
- Real Decreto 766/92, de 26 de junio, sobre entrada y 
permanencia en Espafia de nacionales de Estados miembros de las 
Comunidades Europeas, BOE Num. 156, 30.6.1992, Pagina 22275. 
- Real Decreto mimero 737/95 de 05/05/1995, por el que se modifica el 
Real Decreto 766/92, de 26 de junio, sobre entrada y 
permanencia en Espafia de nacionales de Estados miembros de las 
Comunidades Europeas, Boletin Oficial del Estado numero 133 de 
05/06/1995 Pagina 16547 (Marginal 13536) (*) 
- European Communities (Right of Residence for Non-Economically 
Active Persons) Regulations 1993, S.I. 109 of 1993; 
- European Communities (Right of Residence for Non-Economically 
Active Persons) Regulations 1997, S.I. 57 of 1997 (*). 
- Legge 19 febbraio 1992, n. 142, Disposizioni per l'adempimento di 
obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunita europee 
(legge comunitaria per il 1991). 
- Decreto legislativo 26 novembre 1992, n. 470 , Attuazione delle 
direttive 90/364/CEE, 90/365/CEE e 90/366/CEE in materia di diritto di 
soggiorno dei cittadini comunitari, dei lavorati salariati e non salariati che 
hanno cessato la propria attivita professionale e degli studenti, Gazzetta 
Ufficiale n. 286, 4 Dicembre 1992, Pag. 12. 
- Legge 24 aprile 1998, n. 128, Disposizioni per l'adempimento di 
obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunita europee 
(Legge comunitaria per 1995-1997), Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 104, 7 maggio 
1998, (**) 
- Reglement grand-ducal du 12 fevrier 1993 portant modification du 
reglement grand-ducal modifie du 28 mars 1972 relatif aux conditions 
d'entree et de sejour de certaines categories d'etrangers faisant l'objet de 
conventions internationales, Memorial Grand-Ducal A Numero 21 
du24marsl993,p.382; 
- Reglement grand-ducal du 03 juin 1996 portant modification du 
reglement grand-ducal du 28 mars 1972 relatif aux conditions d'entree et 
de sejour de certaines categories d'etrangers faisant l'objet de conventions 
internationales, Memorial Grand-Ducal A Numero 39 du 
14 juin 1996 Page 1268 (*). 
26 
Netherlands 
Austria 
France 
Portugal - Besluit van 23/06/1992 tot wijziging van het vreemdelingenbesluit, 
Staatsblad nummer 329 van 29/06/1992 
- Besluit van 30/12/1993 houdende wijziging van de vreemdelingenwet, 
Staatsblad nummer 8 van 06/01/1994 
Besluit van 07/07/1994, houdende wijziging van het 
Vreemdelingenbesluit (gewijzigde indiening aanvragen om toelating als 
vluchteling), 
Staatsblad nummer 526 van 19/07/1994 
- Bundesgesetz ilber die Einreise und den Aufenthalt von Fremden 
(Fremdengesetz - FrG), Bundesgesetzblatt fur die Republik Osterreich, 
Nr. 286/1992; 
- Fremdengesetz 1992, Bundesgesetzblatt fur die Republik Osterreich, Nr. 
838/1992; 
- Fremdengesetz 1997, Bundesgesetzblatt fur die Republik Osterreich, Nr. 
75/1997; 
- Decret n° 94-211 du 11 mars 1994 reglementant les conditions d'entree 
et de sejour en France des ressortissants des Etats membres de la 
Communaute europeenne beneficiaires de la libre circulation des 
personnes, J.O. du 13 mars 1994, p. 3989. 
- Arrete du 6 avril 1995 fixant les modalites d'application du decret n° 94-
211 du 11 mars 1994 transposant les directives du Conseil des 
Communautes europeennes des 28 juin 1990 et 29 octobre 1993 relatives 
au droit de sejour en France, J.O. du 15 avril 1995, p. 5993. 
- Decret n° 98-864 du 23 septembre 1998 modifiant le decret n° 94-211 
du 11 mars 1994 reglementant les conditions d'entree et de sejour en 
France des ressortissants des Etats membres de la Communaute 
europeenne beneficiaires de la libre circulation des personnes, J.O. du 27 
septembre 1998, p. 14743 (*). 
- Decreto-Lei n.° 60/93 de 3 de Marco, Diario da Repiiblica I Serie A N° 
52 de 03/03/1993 Pagina 943; 
- Lei n° 8/98 de 13 de Fevereiro, que concede ao Governo autorizacao 
para alterar o regime legal de entrada, permanencia, saida e expulsao de 
estrangeiros do territorio nacional, Diario da Repiiblica I Serie A N° 37 de 
13.2.1998 Pagina 570 (**); 
- Decreto-Lei n° 250/98 de 11 de Agosto, Diario da Repiiblica I Serie A 
N° 184 de 11.8.1998 Pagina 3891 (*); 
27 
Finland 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom - Ulkomaalaislaki/Utlanningslagen (378/91) 22/02/1991 
- Laki ulkomaalaislain muuttamisesta/Lag om andring av utlanningslagen 
(640/93)28/06/1993 
Asetus ulkomaalaislain muuttamisesta annetun lain 
voimaanpanosta/Forordning om ikrafttradande av lagen om andring av 
utlanningslagen (1393/93) 22/12/1993 
- Ulkomaalaisasetus/Utlanningsforordningen (142/94) 18/2/1994 
- Sisaasiainministerion maarays/Inrikesministeriets foreskrift 30.12.1993 
Dno. 8/010/93 (*) 
- Sisaasiainministerion ohje/Inrikesministeriets foreskrift 18.5.1994 Dno. 
10/010/94 (*) 
- Utlanningslagen (1989:529) 
- Lagen (1992:1165) om andring i utlanningslagen (1989:547) 
- Utlanningsfbrordningen (1989:547). De viktigaste andringarna: SFS 
1992:1166, 1993:1369 och 1994:1698 
- Forordning (1998:153) om andring i utlanningsfbrordningen (1989:547) 
(*) 
- The Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, S.I. 
1994/1895; 
- The Immigration (European Economic Area) Amendment Order 1997, 
S.I. 1997/2981 (*). 
(*) Amendment made to the transposition measure in the wake of the infringement 
proceedings launched by the Commission. 
(**) Enabling Act allowing the government to amend the legislation on foreigners. 
28 
CD a a 
VO 
©S 
os 
a 
a* £ v© 
T5 O rocee 
4,90/ 
Q. v© 
-I_I O 
s ® 2 ©\ a « V <o 
ax > a '-s 
H .£• thei 
ofD 
© § 
JS S 
pfi "t» 
Ctt O 
** a mary 
trans 1 1 
CO £ 
o 
a •e 
3 O U 
(D 
jQ 
4^ 
o 4-> 
« o 
CO 
«j 
X) 
3 
CO 
ts 
C 
o 
•*-> cd 
G 
'| 
CD 
H 
T3 
CD e o 
CO 
"(3 
o '•+-> 
.g 
o 
H 
, , CO 
C 
_o 
"3 T3 
< 
*e3 
«S 
<4H o 
fc -•-» 
t> 
hJ 
ID 
13 
CO 
JO 
s 
<D 
2 CD o 
"-*-» CO 
i—> 
«4H 
o 
o 
'3 '&. 
o 
'eS 
£H 
o 
2 § 
*0> 
o 
a 00 
ON 
ON 
1 
Ci> r-
OS 
O 
^ 
CO 
•a 
5 Os 
vd 
w-> os 
r^ 
t 
Q oo 
OS 
VO 
VO 
OS 
© 
T—1 
oo 
OS 
vd 
v> OS 
K 
•i—1 
ex 
CO oo Os 
vd 
co 
1-1 
> o o 
o ^S =* "5 
~ x> 
/—s, 
VO 
OS 
CO 
VO 
OS 
rn 
in 
VO 
VO VO 
Os CO 
ro O 
OS OS 
t-I )-H 
b'o 
U1 VO 
OS OS 
OS CN 
CD 
1 CO 
ofl 
g 
CD 
o 
s o-Os 
Os 
*-H 
00 
OS 
ir! 
vo" OS 
os 
y^ 
5 
r-OS 
oo CD 
O 
3 
C/3 
C/3 
'to r-
Os 
vd 
lO 
Os 
t-^ VO 
os 
CN 
^ 
u-i 
Os 
t-^ 
60 
u 
O 1 
CD 
x3 00 
OS 
^—i 
r-
Os 
^ 
T3 
"g 00 
OS 
^ 
t^ 
OS 
o 
^ 
CD 
t3 
CD oo 
OS 
vd 
VO 
OS 
o 
T—t 
T3 
<D 
• l-H 
5 s 
o 
3 VO 
OS 
>n OS 
r^ 
CD 
O 
<u 
CD VO 
OS 
iri 
<rj 
OS 
o 
i-H 
CO 
<D OO 
OS 
,—4 
»—H 
VO 
OS 
^J 
»—i 
u-i 
OS 
vd 
l-H 00 
OS 
CN 
»-H 
o Os 
CN 
u~> OS 
r^ 
*c3 
o 
PH 
4;3 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(99) 127 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 06 16 11 17 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-99-127-EN-C 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg