natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, in addition to Article 18 EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU recognizes in Article 45 that the freedom of movement and residence constitutes one of the dearest European citizens’ fundamental rights.
Indeed, in addition to Article 18 EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU recognizes in Article 45 that the freedom of movement and residence constitutes one of the dearest European citizens’ fundamental rights.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2007/C 303/01, 14 December 2007.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2007/C 303/01, 14 December 2007.
The relevance granted by European citizens to the achievement of the freedom to move, as well as to its seminal role and added value in the promotion of European identity, has been often evidenced in various Eurobarometer reports.
The relevance granted by European citizens to the achievement of the freedom to move, as well as to its seminal role and added value in the promotion of European identity, has been often evidenced in various Eurobarometer reports.
See inter alia European Commission (2002), Candidate countries Eurobarometer: Public opinion in the countries applying for EU membership, The Gallup Organization, Hungary, DG Communication; European Commission (2006), The European Citizens and the Future of Europe – Qualitative Study in the 25 Member States, Eurobarometer, Optem, DG Communication; European Commission (2009), Awareness of Key Policies in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Analytical Report, Flash Eurobarometer, The Gallup Organization, Hungary, DG Communication, page 36, point 4.2.
See inter alia European Commission (2002), Candidate countries Eurobarometer: Public opinion in the countries applying for EU membership, The Gallup Organization, Hungary, DG Communication; European Commission (2006), The European Citizens and the Future of Europe – Qualitative Study in the 25 Member States, Eurobarometer, Optem, DG Communication; European Commission (2009), Awareness of Key Policies in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Analytical Report, Flash Eurobarometer, The Gallup Organization, Hungary, DG Communication, page 36, point 4.2.
This freedom, and its linkage with the citizenship of the Union, has been revisited, developed and proactively interpreted by both substantive and institutional mechanisms characterizing the EU legal system, i.e. respectively, the Directive 2004/38
This freedom, and its linkage with the citizenship of the Union, has been revisited, developed and proactively interpreted by both substantive and institutional mechanisms characterizing the EU legal system, i.e. respectively, the Directive 2004/38
For an analysis refer to Carrera (2005). and the jurisprudence of Community Courts, most particularly that of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
For an analysis refer to Carrera (2005). and the jurisprudence of Community Courts, most particularly that of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The assessment of the national implementation of Directive 2004/38 by the EP contributes to the promotion and protection of fundamental rights in the EU, the reinforcement of European citizenship as well as the democratic accountability of MS actions in the scope of EC free movement law.
The assessment of the national implementation of Directive 2004/38 by the EP contributes to the promotion and protection of fundamental rights in the EU, the reinforcement of European citizenship as well as the democratic accountability of MS actions in the scope of EC free movement law.
In the Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union [COM(2008) 85], the European Commission confirmed that the control of the correct implementation of Directive 2004/38 remained a central priority.
In the Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union [COM(2008) 85], the European Commission confirmed that the control of the correct implementation of Directive 2004/38 remained a central priority.
European Commission, Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union, COM(2008) 85, Brussels, 15 February 2008.
European Commission, Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union, COM(2008) 85, Brussels, 15 February 2008.
On the basis of the call given by a EP Resolution of November 2007
On the basis of the call given by a EP Resolution of November 2007
See footnote no.
See footnote no.
1 above, paragraph 7, where the EP requested the Commission to deliver ‘a detailed assessment of the steps taken by Member States to implement Directive 2004/38 and of the correctness of its transposition...’. and Article 39 (1) of the Directive, the Commission carried out an evaluation on its application which materialized in a Report published in December 2008 [COM (2008) 840].
1 above, paragraph 7, where the EP requested the Commission to deliver ‘a detailed assessment of the steps taken by Member States to implement Directive 2004/38 and of the correctness of its transposition...’. and Article 39 (1) of the Directive, the Commission carried out an evaluation on its application which materialized in a Report published in December 2008 [COM (2008) 840].
The latter has been rather critical on MS and has qualified the overall transposition as ‘rather disappointing’.
The latter has been rather critical on MS and has qualified the overall transposition as ‘rather disappointing’.
Commission Report on the application 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, COM(2008) 840 final, Brussels, 10 December 2008.
Commission Report on the application 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, COM(2008) 840 final, Brussels, 10 December 2008.
See also Commission Communication, The impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement Report on the first phase (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2008) of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2005 Accession Treaty and as requested according to the Transitional Arrangement set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty, COM(2008) 765 final, Brussels, 18 November 2008.
See also Commission Communication, The impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement Report on the first phase (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2008) of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2005 Accession Treaty and as requested according to the Transitional Arrangement set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty, COM(2008) 765 final, Brussels, 18 November 2008.
In particular, the Commission noted that there has been no MS which has ‘effectively and correctly’ transposed the entire Directive into their domestic legal regimes.
In particular, the Commission noted that there has been no MS which has ‘effectively and correctly’ transposed the entire Directive into their domestic legal regimes.
It added that there is actually not a single provision of the measure which has been adequately implemented by all the MS!
It added that there is actually not a single provision of the measure which has been adequately implemented by all the MS!
The information available in the Report has also substantiated, and has also somehow confirmed, some of the core findings emerging from the study of the information in the questionnaires presented in this Briefing Paper.
The information available in the Report has also substantiated, and has also somehow confirmed, some of the core findings emerging from the study of the information in the questionnaires presented in this Briefing Paper.
The incapacity shown by MS to fulfil their ‘obligation to act’ under Article 10 EC Treaty
The incapacity shown by MS to fulfil their ‘obligation to act’ under Article 10 EC Treaty
Article 10 TEC states that “Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.
Article 10 TEC states that “Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.
They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community’s task.
They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community’s task.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objective of this Treaty”. has negative implications on fundamental rights, the status of European Citizenship, the principle of equality and non-discrimination as well as the very foundations upon with the European Community is being rooted.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objective of this Treaty”. has negative implications on fundamental rights, the status of European Citizenship, the principle of equality and non-discrimination as well as the very foundations upon with the European Community is being rooted.
The EU legal system relies on MS’ capacity to implement correctly and in a timely manner EC law.
The EU legal system relies on MS’ capacity to implement correctly and in a timely manner EC law.
Notwithstanding, the freedom of movement of EU citizens and family members constitutes an illustrative example where these presumptions simply do not work in the ground.
Notwithstanding, the freedom of movement of EU citizens and family members constitutes an illustrative example where these presumptions simply do not work in the ground.
The main victim of this failure is the liberty and security (fundamental rights) of the individual who remains vulnerable at times of ‘moving’ and encounters obstacles while trying to benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms attached to European citizenship.
The main victim of this failure is the liberty and security (fundamental rights) of the individual who remains vulnerable at times of ‘moving’ and encounters obstacles while trying to benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms attached to European citizenship.
The legitimacy and credibility of the EU toward citizens’ expectations remains therefore very much at stake.
The legitimacy and credibility of the EU toward citizens’ expectations remains therefore very much at stake.
This Briefing Paper sets out where the key deficits are in respect of realizing the principle of free movement of Union citizens and their family members.
This Briefing Paper sets out where the key deficits are in respect of realizing the principle of free movement of Union citizens and their family members.
Our focus centres on the identification of problematic areas where difficulties can be pointed out in the national implementation of Directive 2004/38.
Our focus centres on the identification of problematic areas where difficulties can be pointed out in the national implementation of Directive 2004/38.
While our examination acknowledges results coming from other publicly available sources of information, such as those of the European Commission and previous EP questions and work, the foundations of this Paper are based on the data provided by National Parliaments in their responses to the questionnaires.
While our examination acknowledges results coming from other publicly available sources of information, such as those of the European Commission and previous EP questions and work, the foundations of this Paper are based on the data provided by National Parliaments in their responses to the questionnaires.
From a methodological perspective we deem it also appropriate to stress that while the Briefing Paper underlines certain ‘bad practices’ and gaps between the framework of protection envisaged by Directive 2004/38 and its corresponding national legislation/administrative practices, our driving logic has not been ‘to name and shame’ those MS which have implemented ‘the least well’ the content and rights envisaged in the Directive.
From a methodological perspective we deem it also appropriate to stress that while the Briefing Paper underlines certain ‘bad practices’ and gaps between the framework of protection envisaged by Directive 2004/38 and its corresponding national legislation/administrative practices, our driving logic has not been ‘to name and shame’ those MS which have implemented ‘the least well’ the content and rights envisaged in the Directive.
Rather, we aim at illustrating in a synthesized manner how some of the provisions of this piece of EU secondary law might have been misinterpreted and/or badly/inconsistently applied across the national arenas, and therefore at pointing out key thematic dimensions which remain critical and where the EP and National Parliaments should express their greater concerns.
Rather, we aim at illustrating in a synthesized manner how some of the provisions of this piece of EU secondary law might have been misinterpreted and/or badly/inconsistently applied across the national arenas, and therefore at pointing out key thematic dimensions which remain critical and where the EP and National Parliaments should express their greater concerns.
Furthermore, the questionnaire which was forwarded to the National Parliaments was structured by the LIBE Committee into nine headings intending to cover all stages relevant to the free movement of persons as stipulated by the Directive (refer to questionnaire provided in Annex 1 of this Paper).
Furthermore, the questionnaire which was forwarded to the National Parliaments was structured by the LIBE Committee into nine headings intending to cover all stages relevant to the free movement of persons as stipulated by the Directive (refer to questionnaire provided in Annex 1 of this Paper).
The shape of the questions was also based on those issues that had been already identified as problematic by the EP.
The shape of the questions was also based on those issues that had been already identified as problematic by the EP.
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, page 6, where seven issues where already identified as problematic (i.e. notion of family member, authorisation of entry and issuing of residence cards for third country family members, documents demanded by border authorities and air carriers, the interpretation of sufficient resources and of the notion of ‘unreasonable burden to the social assistance system, the interpretation of ‘serious/imperative grounds of public policy and public security, abuse of rights and marriages of convenience).
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, page 6, where seven issues where already identified as problematic (i.e. notion of family member, authorisation of entry and issuing of residence cards for third country family members, documents demanded by border authorities and air carriers, the interpretation of sufficient resources and of the notion of ‘unreasonable burden to the social assistance system, the interpretation of ‘serious/imperative grounds of public policy and public security, abuse of rights and marriages of convenience).
As stated above, however, the information that has been provided by national authorities has been partial, incomplete and selective.
As stated above, however, the information that has been provided by national authorities has been partial, incomplete and selective.
As the MEP Adina-Ioana Vălean, Rapporteur on the Initiative Report on the Application of Directive 2004/38,
As the MEP Adina-Ioana Vălean, Rapporteur on the Initiative Report on the Application of Directive 2004/38,
INI 2008/2184. underlined at the Joint Committee Meeting on ‘Progress in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ of 19-20 January 2009,
INI 2008/2184. underlined at the Joint Committee Meeting on ‘Progress in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ of 19-20 January 2009,
Joint Committee Meeting on the initiative of the European Parliament and the Czech Republic, Progress in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, 19-20 January 2009, European Parliament, Brussels.
Joint Committee Meeting on the initiative of the European Parliament and the Czech Republic, Progress in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, 19-20 January 2009, European Parliament, Brussels.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/hearingsCom.do?language=EN&body=LIBE National Parliaments have not demonstrated much enthusiasm in complying with the EP’s request and answers have been scarce.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/hearingsCom.do?language=EN&body=LIBE National Parliaments have not demonstrated much enthusiasm in complying with the EP’s request and answers have been scarce.
This becomes obvious when taking into account that only eleven EU MS replied and sent back the questionnaire.
This becomes obvious when taking into account that only eleven EU MS replied and sent back the questionnaire.
Furthermore, the amount of information requested in each section of the questionnaire (approximately six sub questions per heading) seems to have encouraged the National Parliaments ‘to pick and choose’ those questions they were more willing to address, as well as the scope of the answers given.
Furthermore, the amount of information requested in each section of the questionnaire (approximately six sub questions per heading) seems to have encouraged the National Parliaments ‘to pick and choose’ those questions they were more willing to address, as well as the scope of the answers given.
This has resulted in some MS providing detailed accounts of their implementing legislations that contrasted with other very succinct or non-existent answers.
This has resulted in some MS providing detailed accounts of their implementing legislations that contrasted with other very succinct or non-existent answers.
Indeed, while some National Parliaments have provided lengthy explanatory accounts on the content of their legislation, others have merely referred to the corresponding legal provisions without duly addressing the actual ways in which they are being interpreted and practiced.
Indeed, while some National Parliaments have provided lengthy explanatory accounts on the content of their legislation, others have merely referred to the corresponding legal provisions without duly addressing the actual ways in which they are being interpreted and practiced.
The diverse puzzle of data resulting from the materials has not facilitated the cross-comparison of the various transposition measures and the identification of common weaknesses.
The diverse puzzle of data resulting from the materials has not facilitated the cross-comparison of the various transposition measures and the identification of common weaknesses.
Next Section aims at overcoming some of these open methodological issues by focusing on thematic areas where fundamental deficits might be identified at times of conducting a cross-comparative account of the results provided by the questionnaires.
Next Section aims at overcoming some of these open methodological issues by focusing on thematic areas where fundamental deficits might be identified at times of conducting a cross-comparative account of the results provided by the questionnaires.
In short, the following four problematic topics can be underlined as showing major deficits and leading to conflict with the Directive: 1.
In short, the following four problematic topics can be underlined as showing major deficits and leading to conflict with the Directive: 1.
Third-country nationals family members and registered partnerships; 2.
Third-country nationals family members and registered partnerships; 2.
Administrative requirements to the right to move and reside; 3.
Administrative requirements to the right to move and reside; 3.
Restrictions to the access to social benefits; and 4.
Restrictions to the access to social benefits; and 4.
Use and abuse of expulsion powers.
Use and abuse of expulsion powers.
2. thematic areas / problematic topics
2. thematic areas / problematic topics
Third-Country National Family Members of EU Citizens and Registered Partnerships
Third-Country National Family Members of EU Citizens and Registered Partnerships
Third-Country National Family Members
Third-Country National Family Members
As long as citizens of the Union exercise their free movement rights accompanied by family members who are also citizens of the Union they do not generally encounter many difficulties in light of Directive 2004/38.
As long as citizens of the Union exercise their free movement rights accompanied by family members who are also citizens of the Union they do not generally encounter many difficulties in light of Directive 2004/38.
Article 5 (2) (3) (4) and article 6 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
Article 5 (2) (3) (4) and article 6 (2) of Directive 2004/38.
However, when they seek to be joined or accompanied by third-country national (TCN) family members many MS place obstacles which go against the spirit and wording of the Directive, as well as the case law of the Court of Luxembourg.
However, when they seek to be joined or accompanied by third-country national (TCN) family members many MS place obstacles which go against the spirit and wording of the Directive, as well as the case law of the Court of Luxembourg.
As a way of illustration, the following problems can be highlighted across the MS subject to study in this paper in what concerns the treatment given to TCN family members at times of entry/admission.
As a way of illustration, the following problems can be highlighted across the MS subject to study in this paper in what concerns the treatment given to TCN family members at times of entry/admission.
In Italy the entry requirement for all non-EU national family members to be in possession of an identification document is conditional upon holding a passport.
In Italy the entry requirement for all non-EU national family members to be in possession of an identification document is conditional upon holding a passport.
Article 4 and 5 of the Legislative Decree No 30/2007, 6.02.2007 consolidated by Legislative Decree No 32/2008, 28 February 2008.
Article 4 and 5 of the Legislative Decree No 30/2007, 6.02.2007 consolidated by Legislative Decree No 32/2008, 28 February 2008.
They provide for free movement of all “Union Citizens with a ‘document valid for foreign travel in accordance with the legislation of the Member State’ and their family members who are not Community nationals but who hold a valid passport.”
They provide for free movement of all “Union Citizens with a ‘document valid for foreign travel in accordance with the legislation of the Member State’ and their family members who are not Community nationals but who hold a valid passport.”