WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/04 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Family reunification.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, admission of aliens, case-law, child of migrant, family migration, foreign national, residence, residence permit, secondary legislation

C 88 E/220

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Family reunification

Is the Commission monitoring the implications of the Irish Government’s recent decision to discontinue
the practice of routinely granting family reunification to parents of Irish/EU child citizens who are seeking
to be joined in Ireland by other family members?

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government over the necessity to establish a coherent
system for applications for family reunification from parents of Irish/EU citizens and non-refugee third
country nationals legally resident in Ireland? Does the Commission agree that preventing third-country
nationals, legally resident in the EU, from reuniting with their families, constitutes a lack of respect for
international human rights standards?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Honourable Member’s question refers to family reunification in Ireland of third-country nationals and
Irish EU citizens.

Family reunification of third-country nationals is the subject of the Directive on the right to family
reunification of 22 September 2003, which lays down common rules on the admission of
family
members. The Directive must be transposed by the end of 2005 in all Member States, with the exception
of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which, pursuant to the respective protocols applying to
them, do not take part in the common immigration policy.

Secondary Community legislation on residence provides that family members of Union citizens who are
nationals of third countries may rejoin the Union citizen where the latter is either a worker or has
sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social security system of the host Member State during
his stay, together with full sickness insurance cover. This applies only to ascendants dependent on the
Union citizen. It can be assumed that, as a rule, the parents of minors are not usually dependent on the
latter.

In Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R[2002]ECR I-7091 (judgment given on 17 September 2002), the Court
of Justice nevertheless upheld the principle set out in Case C-60/00 Carpenter[2002]ECR I-6279 (judgment
given on 11 July 2002), whereby the provisions of Community law on the free movement of persons must
be interpreted in the light of the requirement to respect family life, laid down in Article 8 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as one of the fundamental
rights recognised by Community law.

In accordance with this principle, the Court concluded that, where children enjoy the right of residence in
a Member State in order to undergo there general educational courses under Article 12 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 (1), this provision, so as not to be without effect, must be taken to mean that the parent who
has custody of the children, irrespective of his/her nationality, is entitled to reside with them in order to
facilitate the exercise of the said right, notwithstanding the fact that the parents have divorced in the
meantime or that the parent who has the status of a Union citizen is no longer a migrant worker in the
host Member State.

From this judgment it follows that the parent, irrespective of his/her nationality, who has custody of the
children, even if not engaging in an economic activity in the host Member State, is entitled to stay there
without being obliged to prove that he/she has adequate resources and sickness insurance because his/her
right of residence is based on Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, which does not lay down such
conditions.

Another case relating to the right of residence of parents deriving from the situation of their children is
being examined by the Court of Justice (Case C-200/02 Chen). It concerns the right of residence of the
Chinese mother of an Irish child. The Chinese mother gave birth in Ireland to a child who acquired Irish

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/221

nationality. She travelled to the United Kingdom, where she invoked Community law to claim right of
residence there. The Court of Justice must rule whether the minor is entitled to reside in the United
Kingdom under Community law and whether the mother can obtain right of residence in the United
Kingdom through her child although she is not a dependent of the child.

Admission of foreign family members of nationals who have not exercised their right to freedom of
movement is governed by the national law of each Member State and, for the moment, not by Community
rules.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the

Community, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2004/C 88 E/0226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0789/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN),
Sergio Berlato (UEN), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN),
Antonio Mussa (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN),
Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN)
and Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: International wine piracy (cid:1) amendment of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002

On 10 February 2004, the Management Committee for Wines reconfirmed, by a narrow majority, the vote
of 24 January 2004 approving an opinion on amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) and, more
specifically, to the chapter on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain products.
This opinion was recently approved by the Commission (2). The new rules will apply from 15 March 2004.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, among other
things, relaxes the rules on the international use of 17 traditional Italian wine terms, which can be used,
from 15 March 2004, for wines produced in non-Community countries, provided that it is shown under
set criteria that the term had been used in the past.

It will no longer be necessary, however, for the same term to be recognised or protected in a national
legislative framework, as required by the previous rules. The result of the decision is a free-for-all, or at
least making it easier to market wine not produced in Italy internationally using traditional Italian terms.

In view of the above, does the Commission agree that:

(cid:1) the proposed new rules conflict with European legislation on labelling and consumer protection;

(cid:1) the term used on a wine label should indicate the characterisation, ageing, quality and colour of the
wine obtained by specific production methods in a geographical area inextricably linked with the
history and the culture of the wine described by the label;

(cid:1) the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 contained in Regulation (EC) No 316/2004
contradict the objective of combating food piracy, which is a fundamental part of the WTO agreement
to guarantee fair trade and to protect traditional production from international counterfeiting, to the
benefit of local development in all countries;