Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
Date: 2008-12-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, European citizenship, foreign national, freedom of movement, residence permit

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.12.2008 
COM(2008) 840 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their 
family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their 
family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  purpose  of  this  Report  is  to  present  a  comprehensive  overview  of  how  Directive 
2004/38/EC1 is transposed into national law and how it is applied in everyday life. With this 
report,  the  Commission  is  discharging  its  obligation  under  Article  39(1)  of  the  Directive  to 
draw  up  a  report  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  and  to  submit  it  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council2.  

The  Commission  will  keep  this  matter  under  constant  review  and  will  issue  further  reports 
and guidelines in due course. 

Free movement of persons constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, 
to the benefit of EU citizens, of the Member States and of the competitiveness of European 
economy.  It  is  one  of  the  rights  mentioned  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European Union (Article 45). In the first days of the European project, only workers benefited 
from free movement (Article 39 of the EC Treaty). Over time, this right was extended to all 
EU citizens. Citizenship of the Union confers on every EU citizen a primary and individual 
right  to  move  and  reside  freely  on  the  territory  of  the  Union,  subject  to  the  limitations  and 
conditions laid down in the Treaty and to the measures adopted to give it effect (Article 18 of 
the EC Treaty). Such limitations and conditions are to be found in Directive 2004/38/EC. The 
Directive  codified  the  existing  legislation  and  case-law  in  the  area  of  free  movement,  and 
simplified it in the interest of reader-friendliness and clarity. 

Citizens  from  Member  States  that  joined  the  EU  recently  enjoy  unrestricted  right  of  free 
movement. Transitional arrangements apply only to access to labour markets. 

The  Directive  is  fundamental  not  only  for  more  than  8  million3  EU  citizens  who  reside  in 
another  Member  State  and  their  family  members,  but  also  for  the  millions  of  EU  citizens 
travelling every year inside the EU.  

1 

2 

3 

Directive  2004/38/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29.4.2004  on  the  right  of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1612/68  and  repealing  Directives  64/221/EEC, 
68/360/EEC,  72/194/EEC,  73/148/EEC,  75/34/EEC,  75/35/EEC,  90/364/EEC,  90/365/EEC  and 
93/96/EC (OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77). 
See  also  the  European  Parliament  resolution  of  15  November  2007  on  application  of  Directive 
2004/38/EC - P6_TA(2007)0534. 
Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2004 – 30 June 2007) - COM(2008) 85. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  significance  of  the  right  of  free  movement  is  underlined  by  the  expectations  of  EU 
citizens. A recent survey4 has shown that 88% of respondents know of this right5, an increase 
of 4% since the last such survey in 2002. 

This Report has been drawn up on the basis of many sources, including a study6 analysing the 
conformity  of  national  provisions  with  the  Directive,  a  questionnaire  on  practical 
implementation  of  the  Directive  answered  by  the  Member  States,  the  Commission’s  own 
investigations, 
the  European  Parliament, 
Parliamentary  resolutions,  questions  and  petitions  and  discussions  with  Member  States  on 
practical issues arising from application of the Directive. 

individual  complaints,  co-operation  with 

2. 

MONITORING OF TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

As stipulated in Article 40(1) of the Directive, Member States had to bring into force the laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 30 April 
2006. 

The Commission organised two meetings with Member States to answer questions concerning 
the interpretation of the Directive in June 2005 and January 2006. 

Communication  by  Member  States  of  national  implementing  measures  was  incomplete  and 
late  in  a  large  number  of  cases.  Between  June  2006  and  February  2007  the  Commission 
initiated  infringement  proceedings  under  Article  226  of  the  EC  Treaty  against  19  Member 
States7 for their failure to communicate the text of the provisions of national law adopted to 
transpose  the  Directive.  Since  then,  as  all  Member  States  have  gradually  adopted  the 
transposition  measures,  the  infringement  proceedings  for  non-communication  have  been 
closed.  

The Directive has been already incorporated8 into the EEA Agreement but it is not applicable 
yet in the non-EU EEA countries, as the fulfilment of the national constitutional requirements 
is still pending in Norway. 

3. 

COMPLIANCE OF THE TRANSPOSITION MEASURES 

The  overall  transposition  of  Directive  2004/38/EC  is  rather  disappointing.  Not  one  Member 
State has transposed the Directive effectively and correctly in its entirety. Not one Article of 
the Directive has been transposed effectively and correctly by all Member States. 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 

Flash  Eurobarometer  survey  No  213,  with  over  27000  randomly  selected  EU  citizens  interviewed  in 
November 2007. 
According to the latest Quarterly Activity Report covering the period between January to March 2008 
(ec.europa.eu/europedirect/call_us/statistics/index_en.htm),  the  biggest  share  of  enquiries  submitted  to 
the EUROPE DIRECT Service concerned cross border issues (to travel, work, live or study in another 
Member  State)  –  22%.  Between  January  and  October  2006,  84%  of  enquiries  replied  by  the  Citizens 
Signpost  Service  concerned 
the  Database  Tells  us  - 
those  rights  (Feedback  report  What 
ec.europa.eu/citizensrights/front_end/about/index_en.htm). 
The study reflects the state of transposition on 1 August 2008. 
All Member States except DK, IE, NL, AT, SI, SK, BG and RO. 
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee N° 158/2007of 7 December 2007. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
On the other hand, Member States in some areas adopted transposition measures that are more 
favourable to EU citizens and their family members than required by the Directive itself9. 

Although in Cyprus, Greece, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Spain the problems 
of  compliance  are  linked  only  to  some  provisions  of  the  Directive,  considerable  parts  and 
crucial provisions of the Directive have been incorrectly transposed in most Member States. 

This part of the Report sets out issues of compliance following the structure of the Directive. 

3.1. 

Family members 

Generally speaking, the transposition of the definition of family members under Article 2(2) 
is satisfactory. 

Transposition  with  regard  to  the  rights  of  other  family  members  under  Article  3(2)  is  less 
satisfactory. Thirteen10 Member States have failed to transpose Article 3(2) correctly. On the 
other  hand,  ten  Member  States11  transposed  it  in  a  more  favourable  way  by  extending  the 
automatic right to reside with the EU citizen also to this category of family members. 

Same-sex  couples  enjoy  full  rights  of  free  movement  and  residence  in  thirteen  Member 
States12 which consider registered partners as family members.  

Following  a  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  on  23  September  200313,  Denmark,  Ireland, 
Finland and the UK made the right of residence of third country family members conditional 
upon their prior lawful  residence in  another Member State. Seven Member States14 adopted 
the same interpretation through administrative guidelines. 

The application of this additional requirement, not provided for in the Directive, resulted in a 
high number of complaints. 

On 25 July 2008 in case C-127/08 Metock, the Court of Justice ruled that the requirement of 
lawful prior residence is contrary to the Directive. It is important to underline that, according 
to  the  referring  national  court,  none  of  the  marriages  in  the  Metock  case  was  a  marriage  of 
convenience. The Court of Justice recalled that the Directive does not prevent Member States 
from  fighting  against  abuse  of  Community  rights,  including  marriages  of  convenience,  as 
stipulated in Article 35. 

This judgment caused considerable controversy in some Member States, notably in Denmark, 
where it was suggested that a loophole in immigration law had been created that could make it 
easier for third country nationals to “regularise” their situation by means of marriage to an EU 
citizen (see point 3.8.3 below). 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

For more details, please see graphs in the Annex. 
AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, LT, LU, HU, PL, SI, SE and the UK. 
BG, CZ, DK, EE, FI, LV, MT, NL, RO and SK. 
BE, BG, CZ, DK, FI, IT, LT, LU, PT, NL, ES, SE and the UK. 
Case C-109/01 Akrich. 
AT, CZ, DE, EL, CY, MT and NL. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Right of entry 

The  transposition  of  Article  5(2)  is  often  incorrect  and/or  incomplete,  and  the  legislative 
shortcomings result in frequent violations of the rights of family members, notably those who 
are third country nationals. 

Only seven Member States15 have introduced specific facilities for family members to acquire 
an  entry  visa  in  their  legislation.  Bulgaria  and  Germany  seem  to  ensure  the  facilitation  in 
practice.  Five  Member  States16  do  not  provide  for  the  visa  exemption  for  family  members 
holding a residence card issued by another Member State. 

Additional practical problems encountered by third country family members are caused by the 
failure to differentiate between third country nationals and third country family members of 
EU citizens, who enjoy certain rights under the Directive. The latter are still often required to 
submit  a  range  of  documents  with  their  application  for  an  entry  visa,  such  as  a  proof  of 
accommodation, sufficient resources, an invitation letter or return ticket. 

Article 5(4) providing for the right of entry for EU citizens and their family members arriving 
at  the  border  without  the  necessary  travel  documents  or,  if  required,  entry  visas  is  often 
transposed  and  applied  incorrectly.  It  was  incorrectly  transposed  in  Belgium,  Latvia  and 
Sweden. Six Member States17 have not transposed the provision at all. 

3.3. 

Right of residence for up to three months 

Most  Member  States  have  transposed  Article  6  correctly.  However,  there  are  some 
compliance  problems.  Italy,  Hungary,  Slovenia  and  Spain  make  the  right  of  residence 
conditional  upon  the  third  country  family  member’s  entering  the  country  lawfully.  Greece, 
Luxembourg  and  Slovenia  link  the  right  of  residence  to  the  duration  of  the  entry  visa. 
According to Community law, as confirmed by the case-law18, the residence rights cannot be 
denied on the sole ground that the family member has entered the Member State unlawfully or 
that their entry visa has expired. 

Only Denmark, Finland, Malta and Sweden correctly provide for a more favourable treatment 
of  jobseekers  without  formalities  in  relation  to  the  right  of  residence  under  Article  6  in  the 
light of Recital 9. 

3.4. 

Right of residence for more than three months 

3.4.1.  Conditions attached to this right 

Most  Member  States  have  transposed  Article  7(1)  correctly.  Estonia  and  Spain  do  not  even 
require  EU  citizens  to  meet  any  of  the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  7(1),  and  the  right  of 
residence is given solely on the basis of having citizenship of the Union.  

The Czech Republic recognises the right of residence only when the family has satisfactory 
accommodation. Malta requires EU citizens to obtain a work licence in order to have the right 

15 
16 
17 
18 

CY, CZ, EL, PL, PT, RO and ES. 
AT, DK, ES, IE and the UK. 
AT, DK, EE, IT, LT and DE. 
Case C-459/99 MRAX. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  residence  as  workers19.  Such  requirements  are  contrary  to  Community  law.  There  is  no 
right  for  EU  citizens  to  reside  in  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  as  family  members  of  another  EU 
citizen, making it more difficult for them to acquire the right of residence there. 

Concerning  family  members  of  students,  twelve  Member  States20  have  not  made  use  of  the 
option of Article 7(4) to restrict the scope only to the spouse and dependent children. Other 
Member States have made use of the option, but eight21 of them have not correctly transposed 
the  obligation  to  facilitate  entry  and  residence  for  the  student’s  direct  ascendants  and 
descendants. 

Article  7(3),  which  provides  for  the  retention  of  the  status  of  worker,  is  not  correctly 
transposed in seventeen Member States22, mostly due to the fact that the law provides for the 
retention of the right of residence, but not of the status of worker, which is a wider concept. 
Retention of a status of a worker has impact not only on the right of residence but also confers 
additional  protection  against  expulsion,  the  possibility  to  acquire  the  right  of  permanent 
residence on favourable conditions and an unrestricted right of equal treatment. 

3.4.2.  Administrative formalities for EU citizens 

Under  Article  8(1),  Member  States  may  require  EU  citizens  to  register.  Ireland  is  the  only 
Member State without a registration system.  

The Czech Republic, Slovakia and the UK provide for an optional registration scheme. Other 
Member  States  oblige  EU  citizens  to  register  and  generally  speaking  their  legislation 
transposes the Directive correctly. 

However,  twelve  Member  States23  have  transposed  the  notion  of  ‘sufficient  resources’ 
incorrectly or ambiguously. Problems relate mostly to setting a minimum amount regarded as 
sufficient and failure to take the decision on the basis of personal circumstances. 

Belgium,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden  adopted  detailed  guidelines  concerning  the 
evaluation of sufficient resources. Latvia and the Czech Republic have detailed guidelines on 
how to assess the notion of "unreasonable burden". 

3.4.3.  Administrative formalities for third country family members 

Most  of  the  transposition  concerns  here  relate  to  the  residence  card  issued  to  third  country 
family members, their validity and supporting documents to be submitted with an application. 

A  serious  problem  is  that  in  a  number  of  Member  States  the  residence  card  is  not  called 
"Residence  card  of  a  family  member  of  a  Union citizen", as required  by  Article  10. Family 
members concerned may find it difficult to prove that their situation falls under the Directive, 
and not under the more restrictive national rules on aliens. 

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 

Requirement  to  obtain  a  work  licence  before  being  permitted  to  work  is  not  an  automatic  issuing  of 
work permits that would be allowed under the transitional arrangements on free movement of workers. 
AT, BG, DK, EE, ES, IE, IT, LT, LV, PT, SI and SK. 
CZ, DE, FI, FR, LU, PL, RO and SE. 
AT, BE, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SK, SI, SE and the UK. 
BG, DE, EL, FI, IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE and SI. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.5. 

Retention of the right to reside in the event of death, departure or divorce 

Regarding  retention  of  the  right  of  residence  by  family  members  who  are  EU  citizens 
themselves, transposition is satisfactory. This is not the case for third country family members 
where transposition is often problematic. 

Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia have not fully transposed Articles 
12(2) and 13(2), omitting the possibility to retain the right of residence for family members of 
a  person  satisfying  the  requirements  to  retain  this  right.  Poland,  on  the  other  hand,  adopted 
more favourable rules, allowing family members to retain the right of residence without the 
need to prove that the family member is a worker, self-employed or self-sufficient person. 

3.6. 

Retention of the right to reside – Article 14 

Only  ten  Member  States24  have  explicitly  transposed  the  provision  prohibiting  systematic 
verification of the conditions attached to the right of residence. 

Thirteen Member States25 do not exclude expulsion an as automatic consequence of recourse 
to the social assistance system. 

3.7. 

Right of permanent residence 

In  addition  to  a  number  of  minor  problems  with  transposition  of  the  right  of  permanent 
residence  under  Article  16,  the  most  serious  problems  relate  to  acquisition  of  the  right  of 
permanent  residence  after  five  years  of  continuous  residence.  Hungary  makes  this  right 
incorrectly conditional upon conditions related to the right of residence. Belgium and the UK 
incorrectly  take  no  account  of  periods  of  residence  acquired  by  EU  citizens  before  their 
countries acceded to the EU. 

A large number of Member States26 had problems with the transposition of Article 17, which 
provides for more favourable rules for acquiring the right of permanent residence for persons 
that are no longer working. 

3.8. 

Restrictions  of  the  right  of  entry  and  residence  on  grounds  of  public  policy, 
public security or public health 

Chapter VI of the Directive provides for the right of Member States to deny entry or expel EU 
citizens and their family members but makes this subject to rigorous material and procedural 
safeguards that ensure that there is a fair balance between the interests of Member States and 
EU  citizens.  This  is  one  of  the  chapters  of  the  Directive  where  transposition  is  more  often 
insufficient or incomplete. 

Those enjoying the right of free movement have obligations to their host Member State, the 
first of which is to obey its laws. The Directive allows Member States to expel criminals. It 
ensures that there is always a case-by-case assessment and provides that the measures taken 
on grounds of public policy or security must respect the principle of proportionality and must 
be  based  exclusively  on  the  personal  conduct  of  the  individual  concerned  which  must 

24 
25 
26 

BE, CY, DE, EL, FI, LU, MT, NL, PL and PT. 
AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, RO and SK. 
AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, HU, IE, LV, SE, SI and SK. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental 
interests of society. Previous criminal convictions may not in themselves constitute grounds 
for  taking  such  measures.  The  national  authorities  must  also  take  account  of  how  long  EU 
citizens have resided on its territory, their age, state of health, family and economic situation, 
social and cultural integration and the extent of their links with the country of origin. 

Italy  and  Finland27  provide  for  automatic  expulsions  when  EU  citizens  have  committed  a 
crime of certain gravity.  

Italy has also introduced a scheme that increases the length of detention for offenders who are 
staying illegally at the moment in which they have committed a crime. The Court of Justice 
has  ruled  several  times  that  the  failure  by  an  EU  citizen  to  comply  with  administrative 
procedures  concerning  residence  can  only  be  sanctioned  in  a  proportionate  and  non 
discriminatory way. 

3.8.1.  Material safeguards (Articles 27 - 28) 

Given the importance of the safeguards that lay down the conditions on which Member States 
may  restrict  the  right  of  free  movement,  it  is  disappointing  to  note  that  only  four  Member 
States28 have transposed these safeguards correctly. 

The  problems  of  transposition  are  often  related  to  failure  to  transpose  the  rules  limiting  the 
margin  of  administrative  discretion,  e.g.  that  the  restrictions  should  not  be  invoked  to  serve 
economic  ends.  The  extent  of  unsatisfactory  transposition  is  mitigated  by  the  fact  that  the 
safeguards  seem  to  be  correctly  applied  by  the  national  courts  and  authorities,  despite  the 
absence of clear and strict guidelines for the exercise of judicial and administrative discretion. 
This is one of the major shortcomings in the transposition. 

Regardless of the practical application of the safeguards, it is essential that they be explicitly 
transposed, if only to provide EU citizens with a clear and comprehensive description of their 
rights. Member States should also make more efforts to simplify their transposition measures, 
as often only an expert can understand their effect. 

As an expression of the underlying principle of proportionality, the Directive strengthens the 
protection against expulsion for those EU citizens who have resided in the host Member State 
for a longer period of time. While EU citizens having a right of residence can be expelled on 
grounds of public policy or public security, those having a right of permanent residence can 
be expelled only on serious grounds of public policy or public security (Article 28(2)). Those 
having resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years can be expelled only on 
imperative grounds of public security. The same protection is granted to minors, except if the 
expulsion is necessary for their best interests, as provided for in the Convention on the Rights 
of the Child (Article 28(3)). 

Member States remain competent to define and modify the notions of public policy and public 
security.  However,  implementation  may  not  trivialise  the  difference  between  the  scope  of 
Articles  28(2)  and  Article  28(3),  or  extend  the  concept  of  public  security  to  measures  that 
should be covered by public policy. 

27 
28 

FI provides for automatic expulsion on imperative grounds of public security. 
CY, EL, MT and PT. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.8.2.  Procedural safeguards (Articles 30 - 31) 

The transposition of the procedural safeguards is not satisfactory. Only four Member States29 
have  transposed  the  safeguards  correctly.  Most  problems  in  this  area  seem  to  stem  from 
inaccurate transposition. 

In  cases  of  absolute  urgency,  no  procedural  safeguards  apply  in  France.  The  EU  citizen 
receives no written notification of the expulsion decision, is not informed of the grounds on 
which the decision was taken and has no right of appeal before the decision is enforced. 

More than half of Member States have not correctly transposed the time allowed to leave the 
territory in the event of expulsion. 

Transposition relating to access to judicial and administrative redress is generally correct. In 
the UK, the right to appeal is granted only to those EU citizens and their family members who 
produce evidence that they have the right of free movement. Those with regard to whom the 
UK  authorities  consider  that  no  evidence  was  produced  are  not  informed  about  the  right  of 
redress. The Directive requires all decisions to be open to redress. 

3.8.3.  Abuse and fraud (Article 35) 

Community  law  should  not  be  abused.  According  to  Article  35,  Member  States  may  adopt 
measures to prevent abuse, such as marriages of convenience, as confirmed by the Court of 
Justice  in  the  Metock  judgment.  Where  there  are  doubts  that  the  marriage  is  not  genuine, 
Member  States  can  investigate  to  determine  whether  the  rights  granted  by  the  Directive  are 
being  abused'  for  example  to  circumvent  national  rules  on  immigration,  and  can  refuse  or 
withdraw the rights of entry or residence if abuse is proven. The Directive requires the respect 
of the principle of proportionality and of the procedural safeguards laid down in Articles 30 
and 31. 

Despite its importance, Article 35 was not transposed by all Member States. 

4. 

ASSESSMENT OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION 

In  the  thirty  months  since  the  Directive  has  been  applicable,  the  Commission  has  received 
more than 1800 individual complaints, 40 questions from the Parliament and 33 petitions on 
its  application.  It  has  registered  115  complaints30  and  opened  five  infringement  cases  for 
incorrect application of the Directive. 

The  problems  raised  by  complainants  with  the  Commission,  the  Parliament,  and  SOLVIT31 
correspond with the findings of this Report.  

The  problems  revealing  persistent  violation  of  the  core  rights  of  EU  citizens  are  mostly 
related to: 

29 
30 
31 

CY, LT, ES and PT. 
106 complaints still remain open. 
SOLVIT, an on-line problem-solving network in which EU Member States work together to deal with 
problems arising from the misapplication of Internal Market law by public authorities, resolved 133 of 
199 cases related to residence permits and 43 of 65 cases related to visas. In 2007, free movement or 
persons was the third biggest problem area in the SOLVIT case volume (15%). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  the right of entry and residence of third country family members (problems with entry visas 
or when crossing the border, conditions attached to the right of residence not foreseen in 
the Directive and delayed issue of residence cards), 

•  the  requirement  for  EU  citizens  to  submit  with  the  applications  for  residence  additional 

documents not foreseen in the Directive. 

5. 

STEPS TO BE TAKEN 

The responsibility for ensuring that the Directive is transposed and implemented correctly and 
that  EU  citizens  are  informed  of  their  rights  lies  with  the  Member  States.  The  failure  to 
transpose certain provisions at all or in part is producing situations of legal uncertainty which 
may  result  in  the  adoption  of  legislative  or  administrative  solutions  that  could  impair  the 
rights of EU citizens and their family members. 

The  Commission  will  step  up  its  efforts  to  ensure  that  the  Directive  is  correctly  transposed 
and implemented across the EU. In order to achieve this result, the Commission will use fully 
its  powers  under  the  Treaty  and  launch  infringement  proceedings  when  necessary.  Priority 
will be given to the most serious problems identified in Chapter 4 of this Report. 

The  Commission  will  also  continue  working  at  technical  level  with  the  Member  States.  In 
September 2008 the Commission created a group of experts from Member States to identify 
difficulties and clarify issues of interpretation of the Directive. Two meetings of the group of 
experts  identified  a  number  of  issues  that  require  further  discussion  and  clarification, 
especially  as  regards  the  issues  of  criminality  and  abuse.  A  questionnaire  was  prepared  to 
understand  the  concerns  of  the  Member  States  on  the  ground,  and  to  collect  statistical  data 
and best practice. The group will continue to meet on a regular basis. 

The Commission intends to offer information and assistance to both Member States and EU 
citizens  by  issuing  guidelines  in  the  first  half  of  2009  on  a  number  of  issues  identified  as 
problematic  in  transposition  or  application,  such  as  expulsions  and  fight  against  abuse,  in 
order to offer guidance as to how those may be resolved. 

Member  States  and  the  European  Parliament  are  not  the  only  stakeholders  with  whom  the 
Commission  must  work  intensively.  EU  citizens  must  continue  to  be  informed  about  their 
rights  under  the  Directive.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  treat  provision  of 
information on the Directive as a priority and will continue to distribute a simplified guide for 
EU  citizens32,  making  the  best  use  of  the  Internet,  mainly  through  Your  Europe  portal,  the 
creation  of  an  article  on  Wikipedia  on  the  right  of  free  movement  and  simple  ‘factsheets’ 
explaining citizens’ rights. 

The  Commission  will  encourage  and  support  Member  States  to  launch  awareness-raising 
campaigns to inform EU citizens of their rights under the Directive, as required under Article 
34. The group of experts will examine and disseminate best practice to this effect. 

32 

EN 

Guide 
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/barrot/policies 

how 

best 

out 

the 

get 

on 

to 

of  Directive 

2004/38/EC, 

available 

at 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

At this stage, it is not necessary to propose amendments to the Directive. The Directive must 
be  implemented  by  Member  States  more  effectively.  The  difficult  issues  of  interpretation 
which  have  arisen  so  far  can  be  addressed  satisfactorily  by  issuing  guidelines  following 
further discussion and clarification. 

A second report on the application of the Directive will be issued in due course. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  

STATE OF PLAY OF TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38 

--- 

Legend 

More favourable treatment
Correct and complete
Ambiguous
Incorrect and/or incomplete
Not transposed at all

1. Overall figures of transposition of Directive 2004/38 

8%

8%

16%

5%

63%

2. Situation by Member State 

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3. Overview by Article 

2

3 4 5

6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36

EN 

13 

   EN