natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, EU citizens who lose their employment retain their status as worker for the purpose of residence rights and of access to social benefits under the Directive.
Furthermore, EU citizens who lose their employment retain their status as worker for the purpose of residence rights and of access to social benefits under the Directive.
Article 7 (3) and 24 of Directive 2004/38; See also Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573 and Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193.
Article 7 (3) and 24 of Directive 2004/38; See also Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573 and Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193.
However, many MS fail to give effect to this right to benefits when unemployed instead treating citizens of the Union who are in this situation as if they were new arrivals.
However, many MS fail to give effect to this right to benefits when unemployed instead treating citizens of the Union who are in this situation as if they were new arrivals.
Refer to Minderhoud (2009).
Refer to Minderhoud (2009).
In fact while this was not a specific question included in the questionnaires, this obligation should be kept in mind in particular when considering the implementation of Article 14 of the Directive which refers to the unreasonable burden to social assistance threshold (See Section 2.4.2 below).
In fact while this was not a specific question included in the questionnaires, this obligation should be kept in mind in particular when considering the implementation of Article 14 of the Directive which refers to the unreasonable burden to social assistance threshold (See Section 2.4.2 below).
Use and Abuse of Expulsion Powers
Use and Abuse of Expulsion Powers
According to Article 28 of the Directive, automatic expulsion of Union citizens is prohibited and MS are only permitted to exclude or expel citizens of the Union on the grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”.
According to Article 28 of the Directive, automatic expulsion of Union citizens is prohibited and MS are only permitted to exclude or expel citizens of the Union on the grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”.
See also Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91 Alluè and Others [1993] ECR I-4309, para.
See also Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91 Alluè and Others [1993] ECR I-4309, para.
Furthermore, expulsion decisions must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
Furthermore, expulsion decisions must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
Article 27 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
Article 27 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
On the basis of the questionnaires, a number of lacunas can be identified.
On the basis of the questionnaires, a number of lacunas can be identified.
Some MS do not provide for a conceptual framing of what the normative categories of public policy, public security and public health really mean.
Some MS do not provide for a conceptual framing of what the normative categories of public policy, public security and public health really mean.
This is the case for instance in the Czech Republic
This is the case for instance in the Czech Republic
The questionnaire from Czech Republic states that “In general, it should be stated that State security and public policy are ‘indefinite’ legal terms that must be construed according to the specific situation”.
The questionnaire from Czech Republic states that “In general, it should be stated that State security and public policy are ‘indefinite’ legal terms that must be construed according to the specific situation”.
Refer to the Act on Residence of Foreigners in the Territory of the Czech Republic, Article 9.1 and 2. and Slovak Republic .
Refer to the Act on Residence of Foreigners in the Territory of the Czech Republic, Article 9.1 and 2. and Slovak Republic .
According to the questionnaire “As to restrictions on the free movement the police may deny entry to a citizen of the EEC and his/her family member if there is a reasonable suspicion that he/she threatens security of the state, public order or for the reason of protection of public health”.
According to the questionnaire “As to restrictions on the free movement the police may deny entry to a citizen of the EEC and his/her family member if there is a reasonable suspicion that he/she threatens security of the state, public order or for the reason of protection of public health”.
See Act.
See Act.
6, paragraph 1.
6, paragraph 1.
Such omissions leave wide room for discretion to the police and allows for diverse administrative practices.
Such omissions leave wide room for discretion to the police and allows for diverse administrative practices.
In Italy , for example, restrictions are allowed on grounds of ‘State security, imperative reasons of public security and other grounds of public policy or public security’.
In Italy , for example, restrictions are allowed on grounds of ‘State security, imperative reasons of public security and other grounds of public policy or public security’.
However, Italian law only offers a definition of ‘imperative reasons of public security”.
However, Italian law only offers a definition of ‘imperative reasons of public security”.
The ways in which national authorities take into account and examine the protection against expulsion provided in Article 28 (1) of Directive 2004/38, and more particularly “the social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin”, is also far from clear.
The ways in which national authorities take into account and examine the protection against expulsion provided in Article 28 (1) of Directive 2004/38, and more particularly “the social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin”, is also far from clear.
As already highlighted by the European Commission Report COM(2008) 840,
As already highlighted by the European Commission Report COM(2008) 840,
Page 8. there are still two MS, Italy and Finland , which provide in their national law for automatic expulsions of citizens of the Union serious criminal convictions or ‘having committed a crime of certain gravity’ at times of deciding whether the person constitutes a threat to public policy and public security.
Page 8. there are still two MS, Italy and Finland , which provide in their national law for automatic expulsions of citizens of the Union serious criminal convictions or ‘having committed a crime of certain gravity’ at times of deciding whether the person constitutes a threat to public policy and public security.
The Italian Penal Code states that the expulsion of a Community national will occur in the case of a sentence of imprisonment of at least two years or in the case of a crime against the personality of the state (irrespective of the duration of the sentence).
The Italian Penal Code states that the expulsion of a Community national will occur in the case of a sentence of imprisonment of at least two years or in the case of a crime against the personality of the state (irrespective of the duration of the sentence).
See Articles 235 and 312 of the Penal Code as amended by Decree-Law No 92 of 23 May 2008 (converted finally into Law No 125 of 24 July 2008).
See Articles 235 and 312 of the Penal Code as amended by Decree-Law No 92 of 23 May 2008 (converted finally into Law No 125 of 24 July 2008).
Furthermore, the legal concept of “imperative reasons of public security” includes ‘any previous convictions for serious offences handed down by an Italian or foreign Court’.
Furthermore, the legal concept of “imperative reasons of public security” includes ‘any previous convictions for serious offences handed down by an Italian or foreign Court’.
Finally, in the context of its ‘security package’, new grounds for expulsion will be introduced.
Finally, in the context of its ‘security package’, new grounds for expulsion will be introduced.
In particular the Legislative Decree Scheme establishes that EU Citizens wishing to reside in Italy for more than three months have the obligation - for reasons of public order and public security - to register with the competent authorities within 10 days after the expiration of the three month period residence.
In particular the Legislative Decree Scheme establishes that EU Citizens wishing to reside in Italy for more than three months have the obligation - for reasons of public order and public security - to register with the competent authorities within 10 days after the expiration of the three month period residence.
According to Article 20 Legislative Decree N°30/2007 - as modified by the scheme of Legislative Decree scheme - the failure to comply with this rule represents “an imperative reason of security” allowing limitations to the right to entrance and residence of EU Citizens and their family members.
According to Article 20 Legislative Decree N°30/2007 - as modified by the scheme of Legislative Decree scheme - the failure to comply with this rule represents “an imperative reason of security” allowing limitations to the right to entrance and residence of EU Citizens and their family members.
Schema di decreto legislativo recante ulteriori modifiche e integrazioni al decreto legislativo 6 febbraio 2007, n.
Schema di decreto legislativo recante ulteriori modifiche e integrazioni al decreto legislativo 6 febbraio 2007, n.
30, di attuazione della direttiva 2004/38/CE relativa al diritto dei cittadini dell’Unione e dei loro familiari di circolare e di soggiornare liberamente nel territorio degli Stati membri.
30, di attuazione della direttiva 2004/38/CE relativa al diritto dei cittadini dell’Unione e dei loro familiari di circolare e di soggiornare liberamente nel territorio degli Stati membri.
Available at:
Available at:
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/AttiDelGoverno/pdf/0005.pdf It follows that EU citizens and their family members may be removed from the Italian territory if they do not register with the competent authorities within 10 days after the established three month period.
http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/AttiDelGoverno/pdf/0005.pdf It follows that EU citizens and their family members may be removed from the Italian territory if they do not register with the competent authorities within 10 days after the established three month period.
In the Czech Republic , it appears that the most frequent criminal law punishment imposed on foreigners is expulsion if this is required for the safety of persons or property or other public interest.
In the Czech Republic , it appears that the most frequent criminal law punishment imposed on foreigners is expulsion if this is required for the safety of persons or property or other public interest.
Section 57 of the Czech Criminal Code as described in the Czech answer to the questionnaire.
Section 57 of the Czech Criminal Code as described in the Czech answer to the questionnaire.
In this context, the issue of compliance with the proportionality requirement of the Directive may be raised.
In this context, the issue of compliance with the proportionality requirement of the Directive may be raised.
A similar concern applies to Romania where restrictions to free movement and expulsions can take place if there is an ‘imminent danger’ for the public policy and public security.
A similar concern applies to Romania where restrictions to free movement and expulsions can take place if there is an ‘imminent danger’ for the public policy and public security.
The meaning and scope of this category is not developed in the law.
The meaning and scope of this category is not developed in the law.
Some MS do not accept that the limitations on expulsion apply even where the citizen of the Union has resided for more than three months and does not yet fulfil the conditions of work, self employment or residence.
Some MS do not accept that the limitations on expulsion apply even where the citizen of the Union has resided for more than three months and does not yet fulfil the conditions of work, self employment or residence.
European Parliament Resolution on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, 15.11.2007.
European Parliament Resolution on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, 15.11.2007.
Very little quantitative, and hardly any qualitative data, was provided in this respect by the national answers provided by Italy in the questionnaire.
Very little quantitative, and hardly any qualitative data, was provided in this respect by the national answers provided by Italy in the questionnaire.
On the legal measures adopted by the Italian Government in the framework of the ‘Security package’ see European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy, available at:
On the legal measures adopted by the Italian Government in the framework of the ‘Security package’ see European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy, available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0361+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#ref_1_12 ; Council of Europe, Memorandum presented by Thomas Hammarberg Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0361+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#ref_1_12 ; Council of Europe, Memorandum presented by Thomas Hammarberg Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
Linkage of Recourse to the Social Assistance System and Expulsion
Linkage of Recourse to the Social Assistance System and Expulsion
While Directive 2004/38 does not permit MS to automatically expel a citizen of the Union because s/he has become an ‘unreasonable’ burden on the social assistance system,
While Directive 2004/38 does not permit MS to automatically expel a citizen of the Union because s/he has become an ‘unreasonable’ burden on the social assistance system,
Recital 16 and Article 14 (3) of Directive 2004/38.
Recital 16 and Article 14 (3) of Directive 2004/38.
Recital 16 states that “As long as the beneficiaries of the right of residence do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state they should not be expelled.
Recital 16 states that “As long as the beneficiaries of the right of residence do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state they should not be expelled.
Therefore, an expulsion measure should not be the automatic consequence of recourse to the social assistance system.
Therefore, an expulsion measure should not be the automatic consequence of recourse to the social assistance system.
The host member state should examine whether it is a case of temporary difficulties and take into account the duration of residence, the personal circumstances and the amount of aid granted in order to consider whether the beneficiary has become an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system and to proceed to his expulsion.
The host member state should examine whether it is a case of temporary difficulties and take into account the duration of residence, the personal circumstances and the amount of aid granted in order to consider whether the beneficiary has become an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system and to proceed to his expulsion.
In no case should an expulsion measure be adopted against workers, self-employed persons or job-seekers as defined by the Court of Justice save on grounds of public policy or public security”. a number of MS seem to take this approach.
In no case should an expulsion measure be adopted against workers, self-employed persons or job-seekers as defined by the Court of Justice save on grounds of public policy or public security”. a number of MS seem to take this approach.
Notwithstanding the need to take into account conditions of proportionality and individually assessed decisions of the personal situation, the criterion not to represent an ‘unreasonable burden’ has been implemented in very different ways at national level.
Notwithstanding the need to take into account conditions of proportionality and individually assessed decisions of the personal situation, the criterion not to represent an ‘unreasonable burden’ has been implemented in very different ways at national level.
While some MS do not specify how this is actually applied, such as for example Austria that merely states that it takes all relevant criteria into account,
While some MS do not specify how this is actually applied, such as for example Austria that merely states that it takes all relevant criteria into account,
The Austrian questionnaire states that “According to administrative data and case-law, a person would become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system if the purpose of their entering the country was in order to draw social benefits; Where there is no early indication of abuse, an individual assessment is made, whereby all relevant circumstances – especially the duration and purpose of stay (entry for employment purposes or as a student, etc) – are taken into account”. others like the Czech Republic appear to have created detailed national scaling systems in the shape of a points-based system.
The Austrian questionnaire states that “According to administrative data and case-law, a person would become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system if the purpose of their entering the country was in order to draw social benefits; Where there is no early indication of abuse, an individual assessment is made, whereby all relevant circumstances – especially the duration and purpose of stay (entry for employment purposes or as a student, etc) – are taken into account”. others like the Czech Republic appear to have created detailed national scaling systems in the shape of a points-based system.
This system comprises the duration of residence to date, the duration of employment and education and potentials for future employability, qualifications as well as the unemployment rate in the region of residence.
This system comprises the duration of residence to date, the duration of employment and education and potentials for future employability, qualifications as well as the unemployment rate in the region of residence.
In Belgium , the administrative authorities can declare the termination of residence of less than three years of a foreign national who has been dependent on social assistance ( centre public d’aide sociale – C.P.A.S) for more than three months.
In Belgium , the administrative authorities can declare the termination of residence of less than three years of a foreign national who has been dependent on social assistance ( centre public d’aide sociale – C.P.A.S) for more than three months.
In the Slovak Republic on the other hand, family members of EU citizens have to submit a declaration that they will not become burden to the health care and social assistance system.
In the Slovak Republic on the other hand, family members of EU citizens have to submit a declaration that they will not become burden to the health care and social assistance system.
Article 45b (3) (d) of the Act no.
Article 45b (3) (d) of the Act no.
48/2002 Coll. on the residence of foreigners.
48/2002 Coll. on the residence of foreigners.
In Cyprus the competent authority (The Social Welfare Services of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance) will take into consideration ‘the personal situation’ of the person and “this assessment shall not be carried out systematically”.
In Cyprus the competent authority (The Social Welfare Services of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance) will take into consideration ‘the personal situation’ of the person and “this assessment shall not be carried out systematically”.
Article 10 (5) of the Law on the Right of Union Citizens and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Republic of Cyprus, 9 February 2007.
Article 10 (5) of the Law on the Right of Union Citizens and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Republic of Cyprus, 9 February 2007.
Procedural Safeguards
Procedural Safeguards
An expulsion order may only be enforced after a month of notification except in duly substantiated cases of emergency.
An expulsion order may only be enforced after a month of notification except in duly substantiated cases of emergency.
Articles 28, 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38.
Articles 28, 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38.
According to the Commission Report COM(2008) 840 few MS have transposed the safeguards correctly and inaccurate transposition constitutes the general rule.
According to the Commission Report COM(2008) 840 few MS have transposed the safeguards correctly and inaccurate transposition constitutes the general rule.
For instance the Report highlights that “in cases of absolute urgency, no procedural safeguards apply in France.
For instance the Report highlights that “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”, see point 3.8.2, page 9 of the Report.
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”, see point 3.8.2, page 9 of the Report.
In Romania , while no timeframe is given for the enforcement of an expulsion decision, the right of residence terminates on the day of the ruling and appeals (which might be presented within 10 days as from the notification date) do not have a suspensive effect.
In Romania , while no timeframe is given for the enforcement of an expulsion decision, the right of residence terminates on the day of the ruling and appeals (which might be presented within 10 days as from the notification date) do not have a suspensive effect.
The Questionnaire also states that “In strongly motivated cases and in order to prevent imminent damage, the plaintiff may ask the Court to take the decision of suspending the materialization of the decision of declaring undesirable person, up to the moment the action is solved.
The Questionnaire also states that “In strongly motivated cases and in order to prevent imminent damage, the plaintiff may ask the Court to take the decision of suspending the materialization of the decision of declaring undesirable person, up to the moment the action is solved.
The court shall urgently solve the suspension request, the decision in this case being de iure executorial”.
The court shall urgently solve the suspension request, the decision in this case being de iure executorial”.
The transposition of the Directive 2004/38 carried out by Spain has been partial.
The transposition of the Directive 2004/38 carried out by Spain has been partial.
The national law does not include an express reference to the need for allowing an evaluation of the legality of the expulsion decision and on the facts and circumstances on which the expulsion measure has been based (Article 31 (3) of Directive 2004/38).
The national law does not include an express reference to the need for allowing an evaluation of the legality of the expulsion decision and on the facts and circumstances on which the expulsion measure has been based (Article 31 (3) of Directive 2004/38).
Furthermore the Spanish national implementing law refers only indirectly to the requirements stipulated in Article 30 (1) and 2 of the Directive.
Furthermore the Spanish national implementing law refers only indirectly to the requirements stipulated in Article 30 (1) and 2 of the Directive.