natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is however very interesting to note that in the second questionnaire provided this time by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic it is however said that “A family member of a European Union citizen, who is not a national of a EU Member State, is obliged to prove his/her identity by means of submitting a travel document or card of residence of a family member of a EU citizen or card of permanent residence permit; if the alien does not hold any of the aforementioned documents, s/he can prove his/her identity by means of submitting another type of document, however, s/he must concurrently prove that s/he is a family member of a European Union citizen”.
It is however very interesting to note that in the second questionnaire provided this time by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic it is however said that “A family member of a European Union citizen, who is not a national of a EU Member State, is obliged to prove his/her identity by means of submitting a travel document or card of residence of a family member of a EU citizen or card of permanent residence permit; if the alien does not hold any of the aforementioned documents, s/he can prove his/her identity by means of submitting another type of document, however, s/he must concurrently prove that s/he is a family member of a European Union citizen”.
Furthermore in light of the provisions of the Directive, entry visa for TCN family members should be obtained free of charge, as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.
Furthermore in light of the provisions of the Directive, entry visa for TCN family members should be obtained free of charge, as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.
This, however, does not seem to have been interpreted by all MS as a binding rule as few of them make mention of the existence of such procedures in their answers to the questionnaires.
This, however, does not seem to have been interpreted by all MS as a binding rule as few of them make mention of the existence of such procedures in their answers to the questionnaires.
For example in Slovenia ,
For example in Slovenia ,
In Slovenia, the provisions of the Directive 38/2004 have been, for the most part, incorporated into the Aliens Act, setting out the conditions for the entry into and residence of aliens in the Republic of Slovenia. although it is a requirement for family members that are not EU nationals to hold a valid passport with a visa, no special procedure to obtain this document in a easier way (‘as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure’) appears to have been put into place.
In Slovenia, the provisions of the Directive 38/2004 have been, for the most part, incorporated into the Aliens Act, setting out the conditions for the entry into and residence of aliens in the Republic of Slovenia. although it is a requirement for family members that are not EU nationals to hold a valid passport with a visa, no special procedure to obtain this document in a easier way (‘as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure’) appears to have been put into place.
Moreover, the visa requirement should, according to the Directive, be waived when a TCN family member is in possession of a passport as well as a residence permit issued by another MS.
Moreover, the visa requirement should, according to the Directive, be waived when a TCN family member is in possession of a passport as well as a residence permit issued by another MS.
The ECJ has showed important interventions and proactive interpretations of the foundations of European citizenship which have expanded the enactment of this status both ratione materiae and ratione personae .
The ECJ has showed important interventions and proactive interpretations of the foundations of European citizenship which have expanded the enactment of this status both ratione materiae and ratione personae .
The judicialization of the status of European citizen, and the freedoms and rights attached to it, has gradually enlarged and liberalised the limits of European citizenship.
The judicialization of the status of European citizen, and the freedoms and rights attached to it, has gradually enlarged and liberalised the limits of European citizenship.
The literature has focused on the dynamic role of Community Courts in the enactment of European citizenship and the significance of their successive rulings.
The literature has focused on the dynamic role of Community Courts in the enactment of European citizenship and the significance of their successive rulings.
See among others, Craig and De Búrca (2007), Kostakopoulou, (2007), Jacobs (2007) and Guild (2007b).
See among others, Craig and De Búrca (2007), Kostakopoulou, (2007), Jacobs (2007) and Guild (2007b).
For a ‘state of the art’ see Carrera and Merlino (2008).
For a ‘state of the art’ see Carrera and Merlino (2008).
It remains unclear the extent to which all the EU-25 MS have yet applied fully the ECJ jurisprudence according to which TCN family members cannot be required to have been previously legally residing with an EU citizen in another MS in order to benefit from freedom of movement and the right of residence.
It remains unclear the extent to which all the EU-25 MS have yet applied fully the ECJ jurisprudence according to which TCN family members cannot be required to have been previously legally residing with an EU citizen in another MS in order to benefit from freedom of movement and the right of residence.
See page 4 of the Report.
See page 4 of the Report.
Other MS are applying the ruling only to spouses and children of EU citizens exercising their free movement rights and not to wider family members, such as parents and grandparents who are also covered by the Directive.
Other MS are applying the ruling only to spouses and children of EU citizens exercising their free movement rights and not to wider family members, such as parents and grandparents who are also covered by the Directive.
There seems to be also a tendency in some administrations to apply a sufficient resources requirement for TCNs’ family members even where the principal is a worker or self employed even though this is not permitted under Article 7 of Directive 2004/38.
There seems to be also a tendency in some administrations to apply a sufficient resources requirement for TCNs’ family members even where the principal is a worker or self employed even though this is not permitted under Article 7 of Directive 2004/38.
Article 7(1) of the Directive provides that “All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they: (a)are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or (b)have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members (...) and 7(2) “The right of residence provided for in paragraph 1 shall extend to family members who are not nationals of a Member State, accompanying or joining the Union citizen in the host Member State, provided that such Union citizen satisfies the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c); Refer to Section 2.3. of this Briefing Paper for its implementation.
Article 7(1) of the Directive provides that “All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they: (a)are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or (b)have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members (...) and 7(2) “The right of residence provided for in paragraph 1 shall extend to family members who are not nationals of a Member State, accompanying or joining the Union citizen in the host Member State, provided that such Union citizen satisfies the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c); Refer to Section 2.3. of this Briefing Paper for its implementation.
Indeed, the relevance of ECJ rulings is exemplified by Metock,
Indeed, the relevance of ECJ rulings is exemplified by Metock,
C-127/08 Metock 25 July 2008.
C-127/08 Metock 25 July 2008.
See also C-1/05 Jia ; C-459/99 MRAX ; C-60/00 Carpenter , C-291/05, Eind , 11 December 2007, para.
See also C-1/05 Jia ; C-459/99 MRAX ; C-60/00 Carpenter , C-291/05, Eind , 11 December 2007, para.
45. where the Court overruled its previous arguments in Akrich
45. where the Court overruled its previous arguments in Akrich
Paragraph 58 of Metock . and held that there is a right for citizens of the Union who are exercising their free movement rights in a host state to be joined or accompanied by TCN family members irrespective of where they are coming from (i.e. outside the EU or not) and prior lawful residence.
Paragraph 58 of Metock . and held that there is a right for citizens of the Union who are exercising their free movement rights in a host state to be joined or accompanied by TCN family members irrespective of where they are coming from (i.e. outside the EU or not) and prior lawful residence.
From the questionnaires no information on the potential impact of these important judgments has been obtained.
From the questionnaires no information on the potential impact of these important judgments has been obtained.
Same-Sex Marriages and Registered Partnership: An Uneven Recognition
Same-Sex Marriages and Registered Partnership: An Uneven Recognition
For those EU nationals who are entitled, under the national law of their home MS, to marry someone of the same sex, there is no clarity on the recognition of their marriages across the EU for the purpose of exercising free movement rights.
For those EU nationals who are entitled, under the national law of their home MS, to marry someone of the same sex, there is no clarity on the recognition of their marriages across the EU for the purpose of exercising free movement rights.
Article 2 (2) and 3 of Directive 2004/38.
Article 2 (2) and 3 of Directive 2004/38.
Not only is this disparity in the recognition of different types of union misleading, but it also gives rise to frustration and exclusion of some citizens of the Union.
Not only is this disparity in the recognition of different types of union misleading, but it also gives rise to frustration and exclusion of some citizens of the Union.
For instance, in the Czech Republic while same-sex marriages are not permitted under national legislation, those concluded in another MS are recognized and the spouse is treated as family member of an EU citizen.
For instance, in the Czech Republic while same-sex marriages are not permitted under national legislation, those concluded in another MS are recognized and the spouse is treated as family member of an EU citizen.
On the Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic.
On the Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic.
Austria, Cyprus, Poland and Slovakia , on the other hand, do not recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships whether they take place on their territory or abroad.
Austria, Cyprus, Poland and Slovakia , on the other hand, do not recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships whether they take place on their territory or abroad.
As reported by both national Parliaments in their answers to the questionnaire.
As reported by both national Parliaments in their answers to the questionnaire.
Slovenia does not recognize same sex marital unions either.
Slovenia does not recognize same sex marital unions either.
Registered partners also encounter problems when seeking to enforce their free movement rights.
Registered partners also encounter problems when seeking to enforce their free movement rights.
According to Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive, the duty on MS is to permit the residence of registered partners in the same way which they do for their own nationals (which presupposes that registered partnerships are recognized in the state).
According to Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive, the duty on MS is to permit the residence of registered partners in the same way which they do for their own nationals (which presupposes that registered partnerships are recognized in the state).
In some states this obligation has been interpreted more favourably.
In some states this obligation has been interpreted more favourably.
This has been the case in Spain which recognizes same sex registered partnerships and where the rules for entry and residence of registered partners are the same as for spouses.
This has been the case in Spain which recognizes same sex registered partnerships and where the rules for entry and residence of registered partners are the same as for spouses.
Royal Decree No 240/2007, 16.02.2007 on the entry, free movement and residence in Spain of citizens of the Member States of the European Union and other states party to the Agreement of the European Economic Area which, according to the questionnaire recognizes that “partners, whatever their sex, are subject to the same rules as spouses if they are registered in a public register established for this purpose in a Member State of the EU or EEA.
Royal Decree No 240/2007, 16.02.2007 on the entry, free movement and residence in Spain of citizens of the Member States of the European Union and other states party to the Agreement of the European Economic Area which, according to the questionnaire recognizes that “partners, whatever their sex, are subject to the same rules as spouses if they are registered in a public register established for this purpose in a Member State of the EU or EEA.
There is also no discrimination with regard to children”.
There is also no discrimination with regard to children”.
In Slovenia however the Aliens Act does not recognize these when concluded abroad even though their conclusion within the country is permitted under the Registration of a Same-Sex Civil Partnership Act.
In Slovenia however the Aliens Act does not recognize these when concluded abroad even though their conclusion within the country is permitted under the Registration of a Same-Sex Civil Partnership Act.
In Romania same gender partnerships are not recognized, but ‘taken into consideration’ if they were “registered before proper authorities and under legal provisions of the Member State of origin or provenience … and only for the purpose of their exercise of right of free movement on Romanian territory”.
In Romania same gender partnerships are not recognized, but ‘taken into consideration’ if they were “registered before proper authorities and under legal provisions of the Member State of origin or provenience … and only for the purpose of their exercise of right of free movement on Romanian territory”.
GEO no.
GEO no.
102/2005 on the free movement of citizens of the Member States of the European Union and the EEA on the Romanian territory.
102/2005 on the free movement of citizens of the Member States of the European Union and the EEA on the Romanian territory.
In addition, as regards the children of same sex partnership, the Directive 2003/86 on the right of family reunification
In addition, as regards the children of same sex partnership, the Directive 2003/86 on the right of family reunification
Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, 22.09.2003, OJL 251. and the right to non-discrimination require that children be granted entry and residence rights regardless of their parents’ legal status and sexual orientation.
Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, 22.09.2003, OJL 251. and the right to non-discrimination require that children be granted entry and residence rights regardless of their parents’ legal status and sexual orientation.
In respect to those MS which do not recognize same sex marriages or/and partnerships, this situation may consequently interfere with the right of the child to be with both his/her parents.
In respect to those MS which do not recognize same sex marriages or/and partnerships, this situation may consequently interfere with the right of the child to be with both his/her parents.
Family Members who are Dependants
Family Members who are Dependants
There is also wide variety across the MS in relation to the interpretation of the concept of dependant person.
There is also wide variety across the MS in relation to the interpretation of the concept of dependant person.
Article 2 (2) and 3 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
Article 2 (2) and 3 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
The European Commission’s Report COM(2008) 840 stipulated that almost half of the MS had not transposed Article 3 (2) in a satisfactory way.
The European Commission’s Report COM(2008) 840 stipulated that almost half of the MS had not transposed Article 3 (2) in a satisfactory way.
As evidenced in the already restrictive interpretation of the category of other beneficiaries of the Directive, this statement of failure is based upon a practice of interpreting more restrictively MS’ obligations towards family members of EU citizens.
As evidenced in the already restrictive interpretation of the category of other beneficiaries of the Directive, this statement of failure is based upon a practice of interpreting more restrictively MS’ obligations towards family members of EU citizens.
The Report also states that ten MS had transposed it in a more favourable way.
The Report also states that ten MS had transposed it in a more favourable way.
The information provided by the questionnaires in this regard has been unsatisfactory.
The information provided by the questionnaires in this regard has been unsatisfactory.
The definition of this category has been given a very broad scope in Belgium .
The definition of this category has been given a very broad scope in Belgium .
See also for example Article 2 (1) of the Ordinance NO.
See also for example Article 2 (1) of the Ordinance NO.
102/2005 implemented by Government Decision NO.
102/2005 implemented by Government Decision NO.
1864 of 21 December 2006 which broadly states that “any family member, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition provided at point (3) and that is dependent of the citizen of the EU in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving”, instead of direct descendant.
1864 of 21 December 2006 which broadly states that “any family member, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition provided at point (3) and that is dependent of the citizen of the EU in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving”, instead of direct descendant.
In Cyprus this definition is narrower.
In Cyprus this definition is narrower.
For instance, the questionnaire from Cyprus only states that “a dependent direct relative of the Union citizen in his ascending line and those of his/her spouse”.
For instance, the questionnaire from Cyprus only states that “a dependent direct relative of the Union citizen in his ascending line and those of his/her spouse”.
It also appears that the documents requested to substantiate this dependency status are very different from one MS to the other.
It also appears that the documents requested to substantiate this dependency status are very different from one MS to the other.
These documents mainly purport to prove family ties and relationship, physical dependence and financial circumstances.
These documents mainly purport to prove family ties and relationship, physical dependence and financial circumstances.
The case of Belgium provides us again with a good example where the administrative requirements at national level are subject to a large margin of appreciation.
The case of Belgium provides us again with a good example where the administrative requirements at national level are subject to a large margin of appreciation.
In fact, in this country, ‘there is no exhaustive list of documents’
In fact, in this country, ‘there is no exhaustive list of documents’
Reference BRI/108.2008 - LT/749087EN.doc.
Reference BRI/108.2008 - LT/749087EN.doc.
The Belgian questionnaire states that “The determination of whether anyone is or is not dependent is first of all an issue of facts, which makes it difficult to draw up general provisions.
The Belgian questionnaire states that “The determination of whether anyone is or is not dependent is first of all an issue of facts, which makes it difficult to draw up general provisions.
Nevertheless we can provide a broad outline of our administrative practice”. accepted by the authorities to prove the existence of dependency.
Nevertheless we can provide a broad outline of our administrative practice”. accepted by the authorities to prove the existence of dependency.
As exemplified in the answers to the questionnaires by other MS, the national authorities retain a significant margin of manoeuvre to define who qualifies for this category and how this is can be evidenced.
As exemplified in the answers to the questionnaires by other MS, the national authorities retain a significant margin of manoeuvre to define who qualifies for this category and how this is can be evidenced.
In Italy , while other family members do not seem to be covered by Legislative Decree 30/2007 transposing the Directive, ‘durable partners’ may be allowed to enter with an entry visa if “the relationship is duly attested by the Union citizen’s state”!
In Italy , while other family members do not seem to be covered by Legislative Decree 30/2007 transposing the Directive, ‘durable partners’ may be allowed to enter with an entry visa if “the relationship is duly attested by the Union citizen’s state”!
Article 3 of Legislative Decree 30/2007.
Article 3 of Legislative Decree 30/2007.
Right of Entry, Stay and Exit: Delays and Obstacles
Right of Entry, Stay and Exit: Delays and Obstacles
In order to enter the territory of a MS, Union Citizens and their family members need to be able to prove their identity.
In order to enter the territory of a MS, Union Citizens and their family members need to be able to prove their identity.
Article 5 of Directive 2004/38.
Article 5 of Directive 2004/38.
Although this usually means holding a valid identity card or passport, a resident permit issued by another MS seems only to be considered acceptable by Belgium , Lithuania and Spain, even though this is an obligation under the Directive!
Although this usually means holding a valid identity card or passport, a resident permit issued by another MS seems only to be considered acceptable by Belgium , Lithuania and Spain, even though this is an obligation under the Directive!
Once on the territory, most MS now ask for individuals, in particular non-nationals, to be holding a valid Identity Card or Passport.
Once on the territory, most MS now ask for individuals, in particular non-nationals, to be holding a valid Identity Card or Passport.
Moreover, what seem to be more problematic are the procedures which apply once the EU citizen and/or family member do not hold the necessary identification documents.
Moreover, what seem to be more problematic are the procedures which apply once the EU citizen and/or family member do not hold the necessary identification documents.
For instance, the obligation to give family members who do not satisfy the requirements for entry in a MS every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence has been interpreted as equivalent to granting time to obtain the missing documents.
For instance, the obligation to give family members who do not satisfy the requirements for entry in a MS every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence has been interpreted as equivalent to granting time to obtain the missing documents.
However, as shown by the case of Lithuania , although phone and fax services are provided, no indication is given as to the length of a “reasonable period” given “before starting the return procedure”.
However, as shown by the case of Lithuania , although phone and fax services are provided, no indication is given as to the length of a “reasonable period” given “before starting the return procedure”.