natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
В някои случаи (Гърция) компетентните органи съгласно националното право могат да изискат свидетелство за съдимост от гражданин на ЕС, подаващ заявление за регистрация, докато в други държави-членки (например в Испания и Белгия) на граждани на други държави-членки се издават специални лични карти и карти за постоянно пребиваване; в някои други държави-членки (Испания) в допълнение към удостоверението за регистрация на гражданите на ЕС се издава идентификационен номер на чужденец, необходим за започване на работа или за регистриране в системата за социална сигурност; в Италия от гражданите на ЕС се изисква да докажат „законността“ на притежаваните средства. ,
In some cases (Greece) competent authorities are allowed by national law to ask for the criminal record of the EU citizen applying for registration, while in other Member States (for instance in Spain and Belgium) special ID cards and residence cards are issued for other member States nationals; in some other Member States (ES) in addition to the registration certificate, EU citizens are given a Foreigner Identity Number which is necessary in order to work or register in the social security system; in Italy EU citizens are required to prove the “legality” of their resources. ,
– законодателството и практиката по отношение на злоупотребата с права и на фиктивните бракове,
– law and practice in relation to abuse of rights and marriages of convenience,
У. като има предвид, че в някои държави-членки съществуват важни различия по отношение на документите за самоличност между гражданите на дадена държава-членка и граждани на ЕС от друга държава-членка, за които се оказва трудно да докажат положението си на граждани на ЕС, пребиваващи в тази държава-членка, като така на практика сериозно се затруднява упражняването на правата им и интегрирането им в обществения и стопански живот,
T. Whereas in some Member States there are significant differences in identity documents between nationals of the country and Union citizens from another Member State, who find it difficult to prove that they are resident Union citizens, which in practice seriously hinders the exercise of their rights and their integration into social and business life,
Ф. като има предвид, че неудовлетворителното транспониране на Директива 2004/38/ЕО относно прилагането на член 18 от Договора за ЕО от държавите-членки следва да бъде осъдено, и като има предвид, че тази ситуация води ако не до подкопаването на ефективността и необходимостта от самата директива, то до сериозното неприлагане на едно от ключовите права, на които се основава ЕС и които са предоставени на гражданите на ЕС от Договорите,
U. whereas the poor transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC implementing Article 18 of the EC Treaty by Member States should be condemned, and whereas such a situation results, if not in the effectiveness and necessity of the Directive itself being undermined, in the non-application of one of the key rights on which the EU is based and which are conferred on Union citizens by the Treaties,
Х. като има предвид, че съгласно съобщението на Комисията от 18 ноември 2008 г. относно въздействието от свободното движение на работници в контекста на разширяването на ЕС ( COM(2008)0765 ), на първия етап (1 януари 2007 г. – 31 декември 2008 г.) от преходния режим мобилните работници от държавите, които се присъединиха към ЕС през 2004 и 2007 г. са оказали положително въздействие върху икономиките на държавите-членки,
V whereas according to the Commission Communication of 18 November 2008 on the impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement ( COM(2008)0765 ) during the first phase (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2008) of the transitional arrangements mobile workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have had a positive impact on the economies of Member States,
Ц. като има предвид, че четири държави-членки от ЕС-15 не отвориха своите пазари на труда за работници от държавите-членки от ЕС-8,
W. whereas four Member States of the EU-15 have not opened their labour markets for workers from the EU-8 Member States,
Ч. като има предвид, че единадесет държави-членки са уведомили Комисията за решението си да продължат да прилагат ограничения на своите пазари на труда по отношение на гражданите на Румъния и България, считано от 1 януари 2009 г.,
X. whereas eleven Member States have notified the Commission of their decision to continue applying restrictions in their labour markets in respect of nationals of Romania and Bulgaria, as of 1 January 2009,
Прилагане на Директива 2004/38/ЕО
Application of D irective 2004/38/EC
3. призовава Комисията да представи подходящи предложения, в рамките на Стокхолмската програма, с цел да се гарантира свободно движение без дискриминация на основанията, изброени в член 13 от Договора за ЕО, като се позове на анализа и заключенията, съдържащи се в доклада на Агенцията за основните права;
Calls on the Commission to issue appropriate proposals within the framework of the Stockholm Programme to guarantee free movement without discrimination based on the grounds listed in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, drawing on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Fundamental Rights Agency report;
Административните практики, които не съответстват на правото на ЕС, оказват значително отрицателно влияние върху правата на гражданите.
Administrative practices, which are not in conformity with EC law have a significant negative impact on citizens' rights.
Като пример, поради разпространението на различни карти за самоличност и карти за пребиваване в държавите-членки упражняването на правото на гражданите на ЕС на свободно движение е станало объркващо и неприятно; в Испания, освен удостоверението за регистрация, на гражданите на ЕС се издава и личен номер на чужденеца, който е необходим за работа или регистрация в испанската социалноосигурителна система, Франция също поддържа неясен доброволен документ за пребиваване, в допълнение към издаваното на гражданите на ЕС удостоверение за регистрация, а в държави-членки като Чешката република, Швеция и Белгия органите изискват допълнителни документи при издаването на карти за пребиваване или налагат условия, които не са посочени в директивата. ;
By way of example, the proliferation of different ID cards and residence cards within the Member States, has rendered the exercise by EU citizens of their right of free movement confusing and irksome; in Spain, in addition to the registration certificate, EU citizens are issued with a Foreigner Identity Number which is necessary in order to work or register with the Spanish social security system, France has maintained an ambiguous voluntary residence title additional to the registration certificate issued to Union citizens and, in Member States such as the Czech Republic, Sweden and Belgium, authorities request additional documents in order to issue residence cards or impose conditions which are not listed in the Directive. ;
Естонското и унгарското законодателство не предвиждат изрично изключването на икономически цели при издаване на заповед за експулсиране.
Estonian and Hungarian legislation do not expressly provide for the exclusion of economic ends when imposing an expulsion order.
9. отбелязва, че не всички държави-членки са въвели член 35 от Директива 2004/38/ЕО, който им позволява да приемат необходимите мерки за отказ, прекратяване или оттегляне на правото на свободно движение в случаи на злоупотреба с права или на измама, като фиктивни бракове, при условие че тези мерки са съразмерни и недискриминационни и че са спазени процедурните гаранции, и обръща внимание на възможностите, предвидени в този член;
Notes that not all Member States have implemented Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows them to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw free movement rights in cases of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience, provided that such measures are proportionate and non-discriminatory and that procedural safeguards are respected, and draws attention to the possibilities provided by that Article;
15. отбелязва, че това незадоволително транспониране на Директива 2004/38/ЕО показва неспособността на Комисията да осигури съгласуваното и своевременно спазване на директивата от страна на държавите-членки, както и да обработи множеството жалби от граждани във връзка с прилагането на директивата;
Notes that unsatisfactory transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC demonstrates that the Commission has been unable to secure coherent and timely compliance with the Directive by Member States and to handle the large number of complaints from citizens in relation to the application of the Directive;
23. призовава Комисията да създаде система за взаимна оценка по отношение на свободното движение на хора, която оценка да се извършва от групи от експерти, определени от държавите-членки и от Парламента, подпомагани от Комисията и от Генералния секретариат на Съвета, на основата на посещения на място и без да се нарушават правомощията, предоставени на Комисията от Договорите;
Calls on the Commission to set, with regard to the free movement of people, a mutual evaluation system to be carried out by teams composed of experts designated by the Member States and by Parliament, assisted by the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council, based on on-the-spot visits and without encroaching on the powers with which the Commission is entrusted with by the Treaties;
представено от Roberta Angelilli и Mario Borghezio
submitted by Roberta Angelilli and Mario Borghezio
(член 48 от Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент)
(Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament)
ОТНОСНО ДОКЛАДА VALEAN
ON THE VALEAN REPORT
– Въпреки че отново признаваме категорично важността на Директива 38/2004 и подчертаваме необходимостта чрез тази директива да се гарантира свободата на движение на гражданите на ЕС;
- While we firmly reiterate the importance of Directive 38/2004 and stress the need to ensure, through that directive, freedom of movement for EU citizens;
– изразяваме несъгласие с подхода, възприет в доклада, който навлиза в същината на въпроси, които са от изключителната компетентност на държавите-членки, по-специално семейното право, наказателното право и реда;
- We do not agree with the approach taken by the report, which goes into the merits of subjects which are within the exclusive competence of the Member States, in particular family law, criminal law and law and order;
– също така считаме за неприемлива бележката под линия в доклада (съображение Т), позоваващо се на предполагано „рестриктивно тълкуване“ от държавите-членки на понятието „членове на семейството“, на „всякакви други членове на семейството“ и на „партньор“.
- We also find unacceptable the footnote in the report (Recital S) referring to a presumed "restrictive interpretation" by Member States of the notion of "family member", of "any other family member" and of "partner".
Бележката под линия критикува „общата тенденция срещу признаването на трети/четвърти съпрузи“, като по този начин предлага широко и двусмислено тълкуване на Директива 38/2004, което може да насърчи измами като фиктивните бракове или дори парадоксалното признаване на полигамията.
The footnote criticises the "general trend against the recognition of third/fourth spouses", proposing, therefore, a broad and ambiguous interpretation of Directive 38/2004 which could encourage the fraudulent practice of marriages of convenience, or even the paradoxical recognition of the legitimacy of polygamy.
A. като има предвид, че трябва да се разгледа междинния проектодоклад относно „Сравнително проучване на прилагането на Директива 2004/38/ЕО относно правото на гражданите на Европейския съюз и на членове на техните семейства да се движат и пребивават свободно на територията на държавите-членки“, поискано от комисията по правни въпроси и изготвено от Европейската служба за граждански действия (ECAS),
A whereas consideration is to be given to the draft interim report of the ‘Comparative study 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’ requested by the Committee on Legal Affairs and delivered by European Citizen Action Service (ECAS),
Alin Lucian Antochi, Monica Frassoni, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Rainer Wieland, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Alin Lucian Antochi, Monica Frassoni, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Rainer Wieland, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Sharon Bowles, Mogens Camre, Brian Crowley, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Kurt Lechner, Georgios Papastamkos
Sharon Bowles, Mogens Camre, Brian Crowley, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Kurt Lechner, Georgios Papastamkos
Directorate-General Internal Policies
Directorate-General Internal Policies
Policy Department C
Policy Department C
Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs
Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs
DILEMMAS IN THE IMPLEMENTION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38 ON THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO MOVE AND RESIDE FREELY IN THE EU
DILEMMAS IN THE IMPLEMENTION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38 ON THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO MOVE AND RESIDE FREELY IN THE EU
BRIEFING PAPER
BRIEFING PAPER
This Briefing Paper examines the main dilemmas that prevent EU citizens and their family members from fully enjoying their freedom of movement-related rights on the basis of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
This Briefing Paper examines the main dilemmas that prevent EU citizens and their family members from fully enjoying their freedom of movement-related rights on the basis of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
It assesses the most relevant deficits in the transposition of the Directive in light of the answers and data provided by the National Parliaments of 11 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain) to the questionnaire prepared by the Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament.
It assesses the most relevant deficits in the transposition of the Directive in light of the answers and data provided by the National Parliaments of 11 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain) to the questionnaire prepared by the Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament.
This study was requested by: The European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
This study was requested by: The European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
This paper is published in the following languages: EN, FR.
This paper is published in the following languages: EN, FR.
Authors: Sergio Carrera (Head of Section and Research Fellow) and Anaïs Faure Atger (Researcher), Centre for European Policy Studies, Justice and Home Affairs Section
Authors: Sergio Carrera (Head of Section and Research Fellow) and Anaïs Faure Atger (Researcher), Centre for European Policy Studies, Justice and Home Affairs Section
Manuscript completed February 2009
Manuscript completed February 2009
Copies can be obtained through:
Copies can be obtained through:
Information on DG Ipol publications:
Information on DG Ipol publications:
Brussels, European Parliament
Brussels, European Parliament
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Assessing National Transposition of Directive 2004/38: Scope and Methodology.............................1
Assessing National Transposition of Directive 2004/38: Scope and Methodology.............................1
Thematic Areas / Problematic Topics...........................................................................................................3
Thematic Areas / Problematic Topics...........................................................................................................3
Third-Country National Family Members of EU Citizens and Registered Partnerships....3
Third-Country National Family Members of EU Citizens and Registered Partnerships....3
Third-Country National Family Members..............................................................3
Third-Country National Family Members..............................................................3
Same-Sex Marriages and Registered Partnership: An Uneven Recognition....5
Same-Sex Marriages and Registered Partnership: An Uneven Recognition....5
Family Members who are Dependants...................................................................6
Family Members who are Dependants...................................................................6
Right of Entry, Stay and Exit: Delays and Obstacles...............................................................6
Right of Entry, Stay and Exit: Delays and Obstacles...............................................................6
The Obligation to Report or Register......................................................................7
The Obligation to Report or Register......................................................................7
Residence for more than Three Months.................................................................8
Residence for more than Three Months.................................................................8
Restrictions to the Access to Social Benefits..........................................................................9
Restrictions to the Access to Social Benefits..........................................................................9
Use and Abuse of Expulsion Powers.......................................................................................10
Use and Abuse of Expulsion Powers.......................................................................................10
Linkage of Recourse to the Social Assistance System and Expulsion ...........11
Linkage of Recourse to the Social Assistance System and Expulsion ...........11
Procedural Safeguards............................................................................................12
Procedural Safeguards............................................................................................12
Questionnaire on the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 16
Questionnaire on the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 16
Assessing National Transposition of Directive 2004/38: Scope and Methodology
Assessing National Transposition of Directive 2004/38: Scope and Methodology
The Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament launched an assessment procedure
The Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament launched an assessment procedure
EP Resolution on 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 November 2007, P6_TA(2007)0534 , paragraph 8.
EP Resolution on 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 November 2007, P6_TA(2007)0534 , paragraph 8.
See also EP Working Document, on Follow up to the EP resolution of 15 November on the application of Directive 2004/38 on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, Rapporteur: Adina-Iona Vălean, 13 June 2008. aiming at highlighting the main problems entailed in the transposition of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (hereafter Directive 2004/38).
See also EP Working Document, on Follow up to the EP resolution of 15 November on the application of Directive 2004/38 on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, Rapporteur: Adina-Iona Vălean, 13 June 2008. aiming at highlighting the main problems entailed in the transposition of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (hereafter Directive 2004/38).
Directive 2004 /38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 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/EEC.
Directive 2004 /38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 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/EEC.
The EP transmitted a questionnaire to all the National Parliaments of the EU Member States (MS) requesting qualitative, quantitative and statistical information on transposing legislation, administrative procedures and practical implementation of Directive 2004/38.
The EP transmitted a questionnaire to all the National Parliaments of the EU Member States (MS) requesting qualitative, quantitative and statistical information on transposing legislation, administrative procedures and practical implementation of Directive 2004/38.
The latter should have been implemented by 30 April 2006.
The latter should have been implemented by 30 April 2006.
The responses provided to the questionnaire at the end of 2008 have been often partial and obscure, and at times completely absent – only the following eleven MS provided an answer: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.
The responses provided to the questionnaire at the end of 2008 have been often partial and obscure, and at times completely absent – only the following eleven MS provided an answer: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.
The resulting data offers however some valuable information concerning relevant weaknesses in the transposition of the Directive.
The resulting data offers however some valuable information concerning relevant weaknesses in the transposition of the Directive.
The EP’s overall exercise constitutes a positive, while challenging, endeavour at times of strengthening the bridges and cooperation with National Parliaments in the so-called ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ) with the prospect of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in areas of such relevance such as the freedom of movement and, more widely, European citizenship.
The EP’s overall exercise constitutes a positive, while challenging, endeavour at times of strengthening the bridges and cooperation with National Parliaments in the so-called ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ) with the prospect of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in areas of such relevance such as the freedom of movement and, more widely, European citizenship.