CJCE. Irlanda & sotul (dintr-un stat tert) al unui cetatean al UE (resortisant al unui alt stat membru, rezident in cel dintai stat)

Stirea din Irish Times suna astfel; solutia la care va ajunge Curtea pare relativ simpla, nu? Si probabil va lua in considerare & dreptul la viata familiala si va face trimitere la CEDO & la Carta…

EU court to rule on Irish ban on non-EU spouses

EUROPE’S HIGHEST court will hear a landmark case today that will decide whether spouses of European Union citizens who are not themselves citizens of the EU can continue to live in Ireland.

The case involves four couples who are appealing a decision by the Government to deport them because the husband in each case is not an EU citizen and has never lived lawfully in another EU state.

None of the spouses issued with “notice of intent to deport” orders are married to Irish citizens but are married to citizens of other EU states. In each case the couples were married in the Republic and the non-EU national husbands had all unsuccessfully applied for asylum, according to pre-hearing documents.

The four couples lodged an appeal with the High Court against the “notice of intent to deport” orders, arguing they breach EU law, and particularly their right to live and work in any EU state.

The High Court recently referred several legal questions on this issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which will issue a recommendation to the High Court in the months following the hearing.

It is widely anticipated that the ECJ case will set a precedent for thousands of other couples residing in Ireland and, more widely, better define the rights of EU states to manage their own immigration policies.

Several EU states, including Britain, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, have intervened in the case in support of the Government.

The Department of Justice argues that a previous ECJ judgement in 2003 in the case of Hacene Akrich provides the legal basis to deport non-EU spouses of EU citizens.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said the Akrich case stated that to avail of the freedom of movement of EU workers and family members a “non-EU citizen must be lawfully resident in a member state when he moves to another member state to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated”.

But the European Commission and immigrant rights groups have lined up in support of the four applicants, arguing that deporting the spouses of EU citizens is discriminatory and contrary to one of the four basic European freedoms: the freedom to live and work in all EU member states.

“Our view is that freedom of movement for EU citizens within the union is a fundamental right and should not be curtailed simply due to the nationality of a spouse,” said Hilkka Becker, senior solicitor with the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

The four applicants are expected to argue that the European Free Movement Directive passed in 2004 provides the necessary legal right for non-EU spouses of EU citizens to move freely within the Union.

This will be contested by the Government, which argues that this directive deals only with movement within the Union and not entry to it.

Last year, the Government issued thousands of non-EU spouses with “notices of intent to deport” orders after a separate High Court ruling that found it was within its rights to insist that non-EU spouses of EU citizens must live in another EU state before residing here.

The Government said it was correctly implementing an immigration law it passed in April 2007, which lays down that non-EU relatives of an EU citizen must reside lawfully in another EU state before being permitted to work and live here.

This was introduced to prevent “marriages of convenience”, whereby non-EU citizens may persuade EU citizens to marry them just to gain entry to the Union.

Brian Burns, a solicitor with the Dublin-based law firm Burns, Kelly, Corrigan, that is representing one of the applicants, said the case would set a precedent for the whole of Europe. “My client is suffering severe hardship because he is unable to work in Ireland and his wife is pregnant and cannot work at the moment,” he added.

Polonia. CJCE despre pensia pentru persoane cu handicap & cerinta resedintei in acel stat

Stirea suna astfel, iar solutia Curtii este evident logica, nimic spectaculos (*). Hotararea in cauza C-499/06, Nerkowska, aici.

 

European Court of Justice rules that Poland cannot require recipients of disability pension to live in the country.

Poland was not within its rights when it denied a Polish national a disability pension on the grounds that she no longer lived in the country, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

In a judgement handed down on 21 May, the court said that it was “disproportionate” of the Polish authorities to insist that a recipient of a state disability pension be required to live in Poland.

The case was brought to court by Halina Nerkowska, a Pole born in 1946 in an area of modern-day Belarus that before the war had been part of Poland. She was deported along with her parents to Siberia by the Soviet authorities, but was allowed to move to Poland in 1957. In 1985 she left Poland to settle permanently in Germany but retained her Polish citizenship.

Although the Polish authorities agreed to pay Nerkowska a basic pension, they turned down an application that she submitted in 2001 for a disability pension for the damage to her health suffered while she was a deportee, on the grounds that she was no longer resident in Poland.

Nerkowska challenged the decision in the Polish courts, arguing that, following Poland’s accession to the EU, her place of residence could not be used as a reason to withhold payment of the benefit.

A regional court in Koszalin referred the case to the ECJ, asking whether Polish rules that require the beneficiaries of certain state benefits to be resident in Poland were compatible with the right of EU citizens to freedom of movement.

In its judgement, the ECJ said that the principle of freedom of movement could not be effective if citizens were to be penalised by member states for moving abroad.

The court said such a restriction could be justified only if it were proportionate to the objectives of national provisions. It concluded that was not the case in this instance.

Italia. Intentii de limitare a liberei circulatii a persoanelor si “problema romaneasca”

Stirea din EUObserver suna astfel:

Italy considers curbs on ‘Schengen zone’ free travel

14.05.2008 - 09:41 CET | By Renata Goldirova
Amid claims of rising crime, Italy has revived a tougher stance against migrants entering the country illegally and suggested the restriction of free movement in the Schengen border-free zone.

“Italian citizens do not want racist or xenophobic behaviour by the Berlusconi government, which it would in any case never adopt. But by their vote they have asked for a firm attitude,” Italy’s foreign minister Franco Frattini told RAI public radio earlier this week.

In a separate interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday (14 May), Mr Frattini - who recently served as the European Commission vice-president in charge of justice and home affairs - suggested an “updating” of the bloc’s passport-free area arrangements established in 1985.

In practice, this would mean limiting the free movement of people by introducing, for example, a minimum income requirement in case an EU citizen wants to stay in Italy for more than three months.

Mr Frattini’s comments come as his government colleague, interior minister Robert Maroni from the anti-immigration Northern League, is drafting a legislative package which would make entering the country illegally a crime punishable by up to four years in jail.

According to Reuters, Mr Maroni is also aiming at a suspension of Italy’s obligations under the European Union’s Schengen scheme - something that would allow Rome to re-introduce external borders. This is currently allowed only in the face of national security or public order risks.

The Romania issue
The move is believed to target migrants from Romania, who are popularly seen as the main source of rising crime in Italy. Over 550,000 Romanians are estimated to live in Italy, many without permission, and some - especially Roma communities - setting up temporary camps.

Fears over such migrants reached its peak last year after the murder of a woman allegedly by a Romanian of Roma origin - something that resulted in the direct expulsion of a number of Roma people.

The then commissioner Frattini himself advised the Italian government to pull down Roma camps to prevent them from returning - a comment harshly criticed by the European Parliament, a strong advocate of the freedom of movement principle.

In the face of new developments, Romania’s prime minister, Calin Tariceanu, has ordered his interior minister to pay an urgent visit to Rome to calm tensions.

“We have proposed to the Italian authorities that we could urgently send a team of Romanian policemen and prosecutors to lend support to the Italian authorities in their efforts to combat crime,” he said, AFP reports.

(…)

Av. gen. Mazák si concluziile pt. cauza C-33/07. Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor – Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti/Jipa… sau despre posibilitatea amendarii regimului juridic national (i.e. romanesc)

Da, urmand concluziile avocatului general, se poate ca in viitor, ulterior pronuntarii hotararii CJCE (iar aceasta urmeaza in cele mai multe situatii aprecierile avocatilor), Romania sa amendeze legea sa… Dispozitivul redactat de avocatul general era urmatoarea formulare:

(1)      Article 18(1) EC and Article 4 of 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 preclude, in circumstances such as those in the case before the referring court, national legislation such as that at issue in the present proceedings which provides for restrictions to be placed on the right of Union citizens to leave their Member State of origin in order to travel to another Member State.

(2)      In the absence of a specific finding by a Member State in relation to one of its own nationals, adopted in compliance with the principle of proportionality and based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, that the exercise by him of his right pursuant to Article 18(1) EC and Article 4 of Directive 2004/38 to leave his own Member State to travel to another Member State may pose a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the Member State of origin may not impose, on grounds of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ as provided by Article 27 of that directive, restrictions on the freedom of movement of that person.

(3)      Failure by a Member State to examine the personal conduct of a person when restricting, on grounds of public policy or public security, his right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States invalidates any justification of the restriction in question.

Textul concluziilor aici (*).

Al cincilea raport privind cetăţenia Uniunii

Comisia Europeana a prezentat al cincilea raport privind cetăţenia Uniunii (1 mai 2004 – 30 iunie 2007). Raportul aici (*); documentul insotitor aici (*).

Un exercitiu de eruditie. Concluziile avocatului general Colomer in cauzele conexate C-11/06 & C-12/06, Morgan & Bucher

Voiam sa semnalam de ceva timp un lucru interesant. Si anume modul in care avocatii generali se straduiesc sa fie convingatori in argumentare. Ei bine, un exemplu relativ recent, de anul trecut (20 martie, mai precis) este chiar pertinent; despre hotarare am facut mentiune aici (*).

In concluziile avocatului general Colomer in mentionatele cauze conexate, persoana cunoscuta deja pentru argumentarea constanta & convingatoare in favoarea acordarii unei preeminente clare, dublata de o autonomizare a continutului juridic, pentru cetatenia UE, in raport cu regimurile nationale (sociale, in primul rand, dar nu numai), se face o incursiune istorica in realitatea mobilitatii transnationale a studentilor, trecand de la Bagdad la Oxford & Sorbona…

Bine-bine, veti spune pe drept cuvant, noi vrem sa fim concreti, lasati povestile astea. Ei bine, nu e chiar asa de bine. Atunci cand absolventii universitatilor, de la “noi”, dar si de la “ei”, in buna masura (n.b. mai nou, surprindem cu stupoare exprimarea unui adjectiv de genul “academic” pentru desemnarea unui sinonim mai vechi, adica “universitar”) nu cunosc exact cine a fost Anselm de Cantenbury ori Thomas Morus sau Pascal, insa pot recita (fara gres) numele fundasilor notabili de la echipele din “Champions League”, atunci exista o problema de perspectiva…

Asadar, cititi ce scrie dl. avocat general (*). In contextul in care circumstantele spetelor nu sunt iesite din comun pt. jurisprudenta anterioara a CJCE.

V – La mobilité des étudiants

Une constante historique

37. Bien que, selon Thomas More, l’instruction impartie dans sa propre langue «est riche, harmonieuse, fidèle interprète de la pensée» (14), la soif de savoir incite à aller chercher les sources, afin d’apprendre des plus érudits, quel que soit l’endroit où ils se trouvent et la langue dans laquelle ils enseignent. Ce désir engendre un flux d’élèves vers les maîtres, qui a été constaté à toutes les époques”
38. Dans l’Antiquité classique, parmi les centres qui ont attiré les personnes les plus diverses, rappelons l’Académie de Platon, le Lycée d’Aristote ou les écoles de Pythagore et d’Alexandrie, cette dernière fondée par Ptolémée Sôter au III siècle avant J.-C., où Euclide a brillé.39. À partir du IX siècle, avec l’épanouissement de la vie monastique, des salles sont apparues dans les couvents et les abbayes aux fins d’instruction des moines qui, sous de nombreuses latitudes, ont réservé une annexe externe à l’accueil d’autres disciples (Jarrow, Cork, Corbie, Richenau, Montecassino, …). En parallèle, les évêques et les chapitres ont créé, à l’ombre des cathédrales, des écoles épiscopales (Reims, Chartres, Cologne, Mayence, Vienne, Liège, …). Le monde arabe n’ignorait pas non plus le phénomène, car Bagdad et Cordoue, par exemple, ont constitué des cabinets d’études dotés de riches bibliothèques et d’observatoires astronomiques.
40. Aux alentours du XII siècle, l’enseignement a commencé à être donné par des personnes extérieures aux écoles religieuses. C’est ainsi qu’est née l’idée des universités, ouvertes à des étudiants et à des professeurs de nationalités distinctes, qui, se servant du latin comme lingua franca, aspiraient à communiquer et à transmettre des savoirs. La première université a été créée à Bologne, mais elles se sont ensuite étendues dans toute l’Europe (Paris, Palencia, Oxford, Montpellier, Salamanque, …) (15).
41. L’université a engendré une grande mobilité sociale. Les enfants des nobles, des bourgeois, des commerçants, des artisans et des paysans étaient admis, les difficultés économiques étant surmontées grâce aux bourses et aux prébendes. Toutefois, l’apparition des États nationaux et les guerres de religion ont amoindri le caractère œcuménique des débuts.
42. Ainsi, Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540) a exercé son activité à l’université de Valence, à la Sorbonne à Paris, à Bruges, à Louvain et à Oxford; Miguel Servet (1511-1553) a suivi des cours de droit à Toulouse, de médecine à Paris et à Montpellier, ainsi que de théologie à Louvain; David Hume (1711-1776) a étudié la littérature et la philosophie à Reims et en Anjou, puis, après deux ans à Paris, est rentré en Écosse, où il a refusé la chaire qui lui a été offerte; Karl Marx (1818-1883) s’est formé à l’université de Bonn, mais il a vécu à Paris, à Bruxelles et à Londres, exerçant une influence intellectuelle profonde.
43. Parmi ces voyageurs du savoir, Érasme de Rotterdam (1469-1536) a une place privilégiée. Il a étudié à l’université de Paris, a été précepteur du fils du roi d’Écosse Jacques II, a obtenu son doctorat en théologie à Bologne, déclinant l’invitation du pape Léon X à rester à Rome. Il est parti en Angleterre, où il a été bien reçu par Henri VIII et a eu des contacts avec John Colet et Thomas More. Il a exercé en tant que professeur résident titulaire de théologie à Cambridge. Il a travaillé dans la maison d’édition d’Aldus Manutius à Venise. Il a gagné le respect de l’empereur Charles Quint, également roi d’Espagne, qui l’a nommé conseiller de Flandres (16). Il s’est installé quelque temps à Fribourg et s’est retiré à Bâle pour s’occuper de la publication de ses œuvres (17). Sa vie fait rêver aujourd’hui, démontrant que, à la fin du Moyen-Âge, l’Europe n’avait pas de frontières pour la vie intellectuelle et n’était pas compartimentée par des différences linguistiques, qui, sans nier la valeur culturelle qu’elles représentent, appauvrissent l’échange d’idées et la progression vers une union plus étroite et plus engagée des peuples de ce continent. Le mythe d’Érasme apporte une lueur d’espoir pour surmonter ces barrières (18).

Jo Shaw. Despre cetatenia UE

Doua articole ale dnei. Jo Shaw (*) despre cetatenia UE & implicatiile politice ale acesteia…

Citizenship and Constitutionalism in the European Union – what role for political rights? (*)

E.U. Citizenship and Political Rights in an Evolving European Union (*)

Articol despre cetatenia UE

Este mai recent (2007) adica “actualizat”.

Dora Kostakopoulou - European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future (*)

Prezentarea diverselor hotarari ale CJCE este partea cea mai interesanta; desigur, in materie s-a scris deja imens.

E.g.:

“Grzelczyk gave the Court the opportunity to advance the normative debate on the meaning and implications of Union citizenship, by calling into question the link between economic activity and residence in certain circumstances (i.e., temporary economic difficulties). This gave ‘a strong appearance of case law moving away from the grant of particular rights to particular groups of (economic) actors and instead embracing a powerful mission of protection of individual rights’. By so doing, it initiated a wider learning process, since students who face temporary economic difficulties would have to be seen as associates and ‘belongers’ to the host community, rather than as strangers and a problem. This was re-affirmed in the Bidar case in 2005″.

Poiares Maduro - Kierkegaard, cetatenia UE & avantajele sociale

Asadar, o lucrare a unui alt avocat general la CJCE, si ea mai veche (2000), insa cat se poate de actuala, si tot despre cetatenia UE…si implicatiile sale.

Uitati ce spune dl. Maduro:

“This paper approaches the debates on the nature and position of social policy in the EU from a different perspective. It puts them in the context of a discussion on Europe’s constitutional identity and its social self. In this way, the paper relates the current debates on the European Union’s social policy to other recent or anticipated constitutional developments. The paper also identifies a series of dilemmas and problems in Europe’s social policy the solution of which, it is argued, requires us to focus on the contested social identity of Europe. Are the different aspects of the social impact of European integration and the social policies of the Union based on some agreement regarding a core set of shared European social values? What rationale has commanded the different social developments involved in European integration? Does European integration need some criterion of distributive justice?”

Si daca ne gandim ca titlul lucrarii face trimitere la un om, Soren Kierkegaard, pe care poate unii l-ar vedea jucand pe la F.C. Copenhaga ori Rosenborg, dar care a scris o lucrare “Boala de moarte” (*), ce da titlul lucrarii dl-ui. avocat general, avem perspectiva unui om care stie carte.

Lucrarea poate fi citita/citata etc. etc. aici (*).

Luis Miguel Polares Pessoa Maduro (*)

Regimul cetateniei europene

Jane Jenson, The European Union’s Citizenship Regime. Creating Norms and Building Practices, Comparative European Politics, 2007, 5, (53-69) (*)

This article deploys the concept of citizenship regime to describe the citizenship norms and practices of the European Union (EU). The EU is, and has been since 1957, involved in building citizenship practices. The goal of the article is to reanimate discussions of European citizenship and to recapture them from the almost exclusive control of political philosophy and a focus on the standard liberal democratic model. Instead, it presents the European citizenship regime for what it is: a set of norms and practices in motion. Its characteristics are captured by analysing four dimensions of any citizenship regime: the responsibility mix; acquired rights and duties; governance; and belonging. On each dimension, current citizenship practices of Union citizenship are briefly described. When this is done, the EU is observed to be adjusting its borders and boundaries of citizenship.

Juliane Kokott - conferinta despre cetatenia Uniunii Europene (2005)

Desigur, e ceva mai veche, din 2005, insa trebuie mentionata aici.

Doctrinarii romani sunt abia la inceput in descoperirea consecintelor dreptului comunitar. Asadar, dna. prof. dr. Juliane Kokott, avocat general la CJCE, a prezentat o lucrare in cadrul Durham European Law Institute.

Luarea de pozitie, foarte interesanta, poate fi citita aici, cu titlul: “EU citizenship - citoyens sans frontières?“(*).

PS. e cu atat mai interesant, cu cat avocatii generali ai CJCE (ma gandesc si la Poiares Maduro) chiar creeaza dreptul comunitar. Prietenii stiu de ce.

PS2. Dna. in cauza are, printre altele, doctorat la Harvard, iar nu la Vanju Mare University.

Directiva 2004/38 si cetatenia Uniunii Europene. Sau de ce, conform dreptului comunitar, este atat de greu sa expulzezi un resortisant comunitar dintr-un stat membru…

Un “post” (sic!), adica mesagiu scris pe un blog merita citat aici. Omul descrie succint obiectivul mult-invocatei deja Directive 2004/38 (*) prin care tot cetateanul comunitar poate circula si rezida in mod liber prin Uniune; merita citit.

Cauzele conexate C-11/06 si C-12/06 - Egalitate de tratament in acordarea de asistenta pentru studenti, resortisanti ai statului de origine

S-a pronuntat Curtea in doua cauze conexate; problema nu e noua si au fost si spete mai spectaculoase decat cea de fata. Si totusi… este de remarcat solutia de aici. Dupa opozitia Austriei cu invatamantul medicinal (hotararea in cauza respectiva, de acum cativa anisori, este o mostra de argumentare si de confruntare a unor minti juridice…) si dupa judecarea anterioara, tot anul acesta, a situatiei din Germania, ar fi un alt pas semnificativ spre “liberalizarea”  accesului la invatamant.

S-a facut recurs la cetatenia UE. Asta una la mana. Notabil in speta ar fi si justificarea proportionalitatii, ca de fiecare data cand asupra unui regim juridic national pica pleasca discriminarii/obstacolelor etc. etc.

Asadar, o prezentare, nu spun de unde am luat-o.

“ Deux étudiantes allemandes, Rhiannon Morgan et Iris Bucher, suivant respectivement des cours de génétique appliquée au Royaume-Uni et d’ergothérapie aux Pays-Bas, se voient refuser en 2004 leurs demandes de bourses. Les autorités allemandes estiment qu’elles ne remplissent pas le critère, inscrit dans la loi fédérale, suivant lequel les études menées dans un autre État membre doivent être la continuation d’une année d’études au moins en Allemagne. Saisie d’une même question préjudicielle, la Cour de Justice a donné tort le 23 octobre au gouvernement allemand. C’est la deuxième fois depuis septembre 2007 qu’elle sanctionne l’Allemagne pour violation du principe de libre circulation. La Cour rappelle dans ses arrêts que si les États membres sont compétents quant à l’organisation de leurs systèmes éducatifs, ils doivent le faire dans le respect du droit communautaire. Leurs ressortissants doivent pouvoir circuler et séjourner dans un autre État membre sans se voir opposer des restrictions injustifiées quant aux modalités des aides financières. Or la condition d’un an d’études préalable en Allemagne entrave de manière disproportionnée le libre choix des étudiants d’étudier ou de se former dans un autre État que leur pays d’origine. Cette condition est de plus impropre à prouver, comme l’argumentait le gouvernement allemand, le degré d’intégration des étudiants à la société. Elle ne leur permet pas non plus de démontrer leur volonté de poursuivre et d’achever rapidement leurs études ni de vérifier s’ils ont fait le bon choix”.