Dreptul comunitar al afacerilor. blog

Abuz de drept, casatorie de convenienta a unui resortisant comunitar cu o persoana dintr-o tara terta & libera circulatie in UE

Va mai amintiti de hotararea CJCE in cauza Metock? Ei bine, acum si continuarea. In orice caz, ar spune unii (si poate nu putini) solutia CJCE e de natura sa incurajeze contractarea de casatorii fictive (i.e. de convenienta) de catre “persoane din lumea larga” (cu vreun citoyen comunitar) pentru a obtine un titlu de sedere intr-unul din statele membre ale UE.

Si atunci ce mai ramane din cadrul Directivei 2004/38?

Din Irish Times: EU sets limits on Government’s ’sham marriage’ investigations

IRISH GOVERNMENT investigations into “sham marriages” must not encroach on European citizens and their non-EU spouses’ right to move freely in the EU, say new guidelines.

The guidelines due to be published tomorrow by the European Commission also say the same fundamental right of free movement in the EU also applies to non-EU partners in “durable relationships” who are not married.

The guidelines have been drawn up in response to complaints voiced by Ireland and Denmark following a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2008 in the Metock v Ireland case.

This test case was taken by four married couples living in Ireland who faced deportation. In each case the four EU citizens married asylum seekers, whose request for leave to remain in the Republic was subsequently rejected by the Minister for Justice. The Government argued unsuccessfully that it should be allowed to deport non-EU spouses who had not lived in another EU state prior to arriving in Ireland, to combat “marriages of convenience”.

But the ECJ dismissed its concerns, ruling that the Irish authorities had incorrectly transposed the 2004 directive on free movement and was unfairly deporting non-EU spouses.

Following the judgment, the Government asked the commission to redraft the 2004 directive to enable it to deport non-EU spouses when it considered they were involved in “sham marriages”. The commission refused but promised to publish guidelines.

“Measures taken by member states to fight against marriages of convenience may not be such as to deter EU citizens and their family members from making use of their right to free movement or unduly encroach on their legitimate rights,” say the draft guidelines, which will be debated today by all 27 EU commissioners.

The commission says freedom of movement is one of the foundations of the EU. It warns that it will use its powers under the treaty, which is EU code for taking legal action.

The new guidelines say the right of free movement should be extended to “partners in a durable relationship”.

“The requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense,” they say.

The commission leaves it up to member states to set a time period under which a partnership can be considered durable. Some campaigners may be concerned that this will allow states to continue to refuse some non-EU spouses leave to stay in the country.

But the guidelines say other criteria must be taken into account, such as whether a couple has a joint mortgage.

Stirea e redata si aici si aici.

N-au aparut inca liniile directoare (i.e. orientarile) (6.06); le asteptam cu interes. Pana atunci, doar comunicatul de presa [EN aici].

PS. intr-un final, iata si orientarile cu pricina [RO].


Cand vor veni belgienii, balanta institutionala se va echilibra. Dar care dintre belgieni vor veni?

Instabilitatea din aceasta tara frumoasa a Europei, nu-l face pe prim-ministrul belgian sa uite, pentru moment, ca a fi purtator de vorbe (chiar si prim-ministru) nu insemana si eterninatate. In Belgia detinerea puterii pana la anul este o astfel de eternitate.

Cu toatea acestea puteti citi aici promisiunile de echilibrare institutionala europena si un mic avant pasoptist de eliberare de sub dominatia celor mai mari.

Distanta dintre echilibrarea institutionala si echilibrarea rotilor nu are legatura cu echilibristica din circ, intrucat printre altele, domeniul cultura nu este unul de competenta exclusiva CE. Pentru cine mai crede ca putem include circul la cultura se inseala, penru ca intr-o lume in care totul se vinde, desigur, circul este o banala intrepridere.


Bobek: Learning to Talk. Despre intrebarea preliminara ca forma a dialogului. Surzilor?

Intrebarea de la finalul titlului nu este retorica sau malitioasa. Studiul ia in considerare si Jipa dar este centrat pe analiza cauzelor din Ungaria, Polonis si Cehia.

Abstract:
This article captures some of the first experience of the courts of the new Member States as well as of the ECJ in their “conversations” following the 2004 enlargement. In the first part, it offers an overview of selected requests for a preliminary ruling made by the courts of the new Member States. The second part focuses on the often hidden practice before the courts of the new Member States and discusses some of the cases which “never made it” to the Luxembourg Court. In the third and final part, the attention is turned to the Community level and the impact the enlargement and the (so far) few preliminary references from the new Member States have had on the ECJ itself.

Michal Bobek, Learning to Talk: Preliminary Rulings, the Courts of the New Member States and the Court of Justice, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2008.


Volum Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) – 1

Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române intenţionează să publice un volum care ar urma să cuprindă contribuţiile prezentate în cadrul primelor patru colocvii organizate până în prezent. Volumul este programat să apară în luna mai a.c.

Structura propusa a volumului.

Partea I. Temeiul juridic al actelor CE/UE. Pertinenţă şi consecinţe

Partea II. Cauza Jipa. Cetăţenie a Uniunii Europene şi dreptul la liberă circulaţie şi şedere în context românesc

Partea III. Acţiunea preliminară în cadrul instanţelor naţionale de ultim grad – art. 234 par. (3) CE. Încheierea ICCJ din 8 noiembrie 2007 în cauza Petrom

Partea IV. Implicaţii de ordin juridic ale viitoarei declaraţii de acceptare a  competenţei CJCE în cadrul pilonului III al UE – cooperare poliţienească şi judiciară în materie penală (art. 35 UE)

[Detalii]

Va rugam să luaţi în considerare posibilitatea de a participa la acest volum prin redactarea studiului până la data de 10 aprilie 2009; contribuţiile se trimit la adresa de e-mail mihai.sandru@gmail.com.

Studiul trebuie redactat în Microsoft Word, font Times New Roman, corp 12, la 1,5 rânduri, folosindu-se în mod obligatoriu diacriticele. Lista abrevierilor agreate se găseşte aici.

Fiecare studiu trebuie însoţit de un rezumat redactat în mod obligatoriu în limba engleză, precum şi de cuvinte cheie.

Pe lângă contribuţiile care au fost susţinute deja la reuniunile Centrului, este binevenită orice altă contribuţie în legătură cu subiectele ce au fost tratate.

Sunt aşteptate propuneri de sponsorizare a volumului.

Volumul va apărea la Editura Universitară – editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.


Articol. Cum se aplica dreptul comunitar unei situatii pur interne? That’s the question…

Un articol mai vechi despre care doream de mult sa facem mentiune aici dezbate chestiunea interesanta, desigur, a incidentei dreptului comunitar (mai precis, in articol, in mare parte - a liberei circulatii a marfurilor – art. 28 CE) asupra unor situatii pur interne, i.e. in care circumstantele litigiului (principal – daca e vorba despre 234 CE) privesc un singur stat membru.

Am reflectat asupra acestei chestiuni care la prima vedere pare a fi “tehnica” pornind de la inevitabilele discutii din cauza Jipa… Unii s-au intrebat atunci (pe drept temei?) cu privire la o astfel de situatie pentru parat…

Asadar:

Alina Tryfonidou - The outer limits of Article 28 EC: Purely internal situations and the development of the Court’s approach through the years [aici]

The purely internal rule has been one of the ways that have traditionally been utilised by the ECJ in drawing a line between the scope of application of Article 28 EC and Member State laws regulating trade. The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly, to provide an account of how the Court has dealt, in different phases of the Community’s development, with purely internal situations and, in particular, to provide an analysis of the Court’s recently varied approach in finding a link with EC law in some Article 28 cases; secondly, to offer, in parallel, an exegesis of how the Court seems, now, to be in the early stages of a process through which it aims to address the problems caused by the application of the purely internal situations doctrine. It will be concluded that, although the Court has managed to respond successfully to one of the key problems caused by the application of its traditional approach to purely internal situations (i.e. the failure, in some instances, to reflect economic reality), more effort needs to be put by the Community institutions in dealing effectively with the other major problem emerging from the application of the purely internal rule (the reverse discrimination conundrum).


Speta. Curtea constitutionala din Belgia si dialogul jurisprudential cu CJCE pe calea art. 234 CE. Urmarea hotararii CJCE in cauza C-212/06

Urmare a sesizarii CJCE de catre instanta constitutionala belgiana, cu privire la compatibilitatea cu libertati fundamentale si cu Regulamentul 1408/71 a unui regim de securitatate sociala a unei entitati federate din respectivul stat, Curtea de Justitie s-a pronuntat in cauza C-212/06 [RO].

Acum a venit randul pronuntarii Curtii constitutionale, pornind de la argumentele CJCE.

Este vorba despre decizia 11/2009 [FR], intr-un dosar pe care l-am putea denumi “intra-belgian”: 2 comunitati ataca o alta comunitate in fata instantei constitutionale.

Pentru cei mirati de aplicarea sistemului art. 234 CE (al recursurilor prejudiciabile – sic!) instantelor constitutionale nationale, o astfel de speta poate constitui un bun punct de pornire.


CJCE. Cauza Bidar II?

Sau Bidar bis? Vom vedea.

Libera circulație a persoanelor – Student, resortisant al unui stat membru, care se deplasează într-un alt stat membru pentru a urma un curs de formare – Alocație de întreținere pentru persoane aflate la studii – Cetățenia Uniunii – Articolul 12 CE – Securitate juridică

C‑158/07, Jacqueline Förster împotriva Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

RO.


Kostakopoulou: The Evolution of European Union Citizenship

Dora Kostakopoulou, The Evolution of European Union Citizenship, European Political Science, Aug 2008, Vol. 7, Iss. 3.

Abstract
In the 1990s most scholars saw European citizenship as a purely decorative and symbolic institution which added little new to the ‘pre-Maastricht’ regime of free movement rights. In addition, many felt the need to defend the primacy of national citizenship by highlighting the derivative nature and weak content of European citizenship. Accordingly, its transformative potential remained at the margins of the debate. Despite such assessments, European Union citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive (Dir 2004/38).


Posted in cetatenia UE

CSDE: Masa rotunda “Cauza Jipa. Cetăţenie a Uniunii Europene şi dreptul la liberă circulaţie şi şedere în context românesc”

Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române, organizează în Sala de Consiliu de la sediul său, Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13, la data de 12 noiembrie, ora 14

 Masa rotundă Cauza Jipa. Cetăţenie a Uniunii Europene şi dreptul la liberă circulaţie şi şedere în context românesc

 Această a doua manifestare a Centrului doreşte să instituţionalizeze dezbaterile şi schimbul de opinii asupra variilor aspecte ale dreptului comunitar, cu relevanţă asupra sistemului juridic românesc.

Masa rotundă îşi propune abordarea concretă şi totodată aprofundată a cauzei C-33/07 („Jipa”), ce reprezintă prima acţiune preliminară adresată de o instanţă românească Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene. 

În consecinţă, masa rotundă se va centra, în special, pe următoarele probleme (lista nefiind exhaustivă):
- detalii tehnice referitoare la acţiunea preliminară şi la întrebările adresate de către instanţa românească;
- prezentarea litigiului principal în cauza Jipa;
- jurisprudenţa naţională românească relevantă pentru cauza C-33/07;
- regimul juridic instituit prin Directiva 2004/38;
- „ordinea publică” si „siguranţa publică” în dreptul comunitar, circumstanţiate „şederii ilegale”;
- semnificaţia conduitei personale în raport cu ordinea publică sau siguranţa publică;
- aplicarea principiului proporţionalităţii pentru o măsură naţională de restrângere a dreptului la liberă circulaţie a unui cetăţean al Uniunii Europene;
- jurisprudenţa CJCE în materie.

Textul integral al invitatiei. Documente referitoare la aceasta masa rotunda.

 Parteneri: pelifilip.com, juridice.ro, infolegal.roEditura Universitară, Tribuna Economică, Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, Euroconsultanţă, ARDAE (Asociaţia Română de Drept şi Afaceri Europene).


Petersmann: Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice’

Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice’, European Journal of International Law. Oxford: Sep 2008. Vol. 19, Iss. 4; pg. 769. [*]

Abstract (Summary)
According to J. Rawls, ‘in a constitutional regime with judicial review, public reason is the reason of its supreme court’; it is of constitutional importance for the ‘overlapping, constitutional consensus’ necessary for a stable and just society among free, equal, and rational citizens who tend to be deeply divided by conflicting moral, religious, and philosophical doctrines. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) Court successfully transformed the intergovernmental European Community (EC) treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into constitutional orders founded on respect for human rights. Their ‘judicial constitutionalization’ of intergovernmental treaty regimes was accepted by citizens, national courts, parliaments, and governments because the judicial ‘European public reason’ protected more effectively individual rights and European ‘public goods’ (like the EC’s common market). The ‘Solange method’ of cooperation among European courts ‘as long as’ constitutional rights are adequately protected reflects an ‘overlapping constitutional consensus’ on the need for ‘constitutional justice’ in European law. The power-oriented rationality of governments interested in limiting their judicial accountability is increasingly challenged also in worldwide dispute settlement practices. Judicial interpretation of intergovernmental rules as protecting also individual rights may be justifiable notably in citizen-driven areas of international economic law protecting mutually beneficial cooperation among citizens and individual rights (e.g. of access to courts). Multilevel economic, environmental, and human rights governance can become more reasonable and more effective if national and international courts cooperate in protecting the rule of international law for the benefit of citizens (as ‘democratic principals’ of governments) with due regard for human rights and their constitutional concretization in national and international legal systems.


Din nou despre Danemarca si consecintele hotararii CJCE in cauza Metock

Scriam si anterior despre aceasta tulburare creata drept consecinta (sau “datorita” (?! sic!, precum s-ar exprima unii)) a hotararii Curtii in mentionata cauza.

Asadar, primul ministru danez s-a exprimat ca regimul national ar urma sa ramana neschimbat; un fragment din stire:

Mr Rasmussen argued that his government would press EU institutions and other member states to prevent any changes to the Danish immigration legislation as a result of the court’s ruling.

“We’re trying to change the set of rules inside the EU so that we can get things as we want them,” Mr Rasmussen added.

Restul aici.


Din nou despre implicatiile hotararii Metock. Danemarca & regimul imigratiei

Un articol interesant din The Guardian, intitulat: “Is the EU dictating immigration law?

Ce e interesant, printre altele, este punctul de vedere al Home Office, din Regatul Unit, stat care, alaturi de alte 9 state membre, a sustinut pozitia Irlandei, statul in cauza in Metock.

The decision goes against the spirit of the directive which is about free movement for EU nationals and we were one of 10 member states supporting the Irish position. All member states will be carefully considering the judgment and its implications“.

Si concluzia articolului:

The heated debate in Denmark speaks loudly about the Danes’ continuing unease with immigration and its multi-ethnic society, but it also throws up a potentially wider European problem of sovereignty on delicate matters such as immigration and the active integrationalist role of the European court of justice.


Unde dai & unde crapa. Hotararea Metock & regimul danez

Da, desigur, scriam ca respectiva hotarare a CJCE va aduce consecinte importante. Pe de alta parte, noianul de articole/contributii etc. etc. (autohtone) dedicate problemei cetateniei UE, elogiind institutia juridica in cauza, nu trateaza implicatiunile (previzibile) ale unor astfel de solutii ale instantei comunitare. Credem ca in viitor ar trebui abordate aceste probleme, cum ar fi, de exemplu, ce se va intampla cu regimul azilului, al acordarii permisului de sedere pentru membrii familiei unui cetatean UE etc. etc. Si, mai general, care ar fi raportul intre cetatenia nationala si cea “unionala”…

Asadar…

…din EUObserver, cateva fragmente:

Inspired by the new EU ruling, a number of couples turned up on Monday (28 July) at the Danish Ministry for Integration in Copenhagen demanding a review of the ministry’s rejection of their applications to settle as couples in Denmark.

Danish newspapers are further reporting that a Danish common knowledge test for immigrants may also not be in line with EU rules.

In reaction, the Danish minister in charge of immigration, Birthe Ronn Hornbech, has now announced a review of the entire system of immigration in the country.

“The government must tell the EU system that it was a prerequisite for Danish EU membership to be able to run our immigration policies independently,” said the spokesperson on EU affairs of the right-wing Danish Peoples Party, Morten Messerchmidt, on Danish Radio.

Mr Messerchmidt suggested immigration should be covered by a Danish general exemption from EU justice policies, while legal experts have stated that the fundamental principle of free movement of citizens in the EU would supercede this.

Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published a comment on Tuesday (29 July) arguing that the EU court is doing the job of elected politicians.

“This practice is a democratic problem”, wrote Ralf Pittelkow, adviser to former Social Democratic Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen.

“The judges are crafting a lot of policies because the politicians allow them the margin to do so. Political decisions that ought to be the responsibility of elected representatives are left with the court”.


CJCE despre dreptul sotului (resortisant al unui stat tert) al unui cetean UE de a rezida in Uniune. Cauza C-127/08, Metock/Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Scriam anterior despre actiunea preliminara si despre ce se va putea intampla. Solutia pare simpla insa ar putea ridica probleme in viitor.

Asadar, hotararea aici EN, FR, RO.

Cititi in EuObserver.

Dispozitivul suna astfel:

1.      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 [...] precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.

2.      Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State.


CJCE & Romania. Hotararea in cauza C-33/07, Ministerul de Interne/Jipa…

Comunicatul de presa al Curtii:

 EURLEX: RO

CURIA: RO

Concluzii Mazak: RO

Hotărârea Curţii în cauza C‑33/07     

Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor – Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti/Jipa

Resticţiile naţionale la dreptul de liberă circulaţie trebuie să se întemeieze pe conduita cetăţenilor si să respecte principiul proporţionalităţii

Această conduită trebuie să reprezinte o ameninţare reală, prezentă şi suficient de gravă la adresa unui interes fundamental al societăţii.

Domnul Jipa a părăsit România la 10 septembrie 2006 pentru a se deplasa în Belgia. La 26 noiembrie 2006, deoarece se afla în situaţie de „şedere ilegală” pe teritoriul acestui stat membru, a fost returnat în România în temeiul unui acord de readmisie semnat între cele două ţări.

Tribunalul Dâmboviţa a fost sesizat cu o cerere formulată de Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor – Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti, de dispunere a unei măsuri prin care să i se interzică domnului Jipa să călătorească în Belgia pe o perioadă de până la trei ani.

În aceste circumstanţe, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa solicită Curţii să stabilească dacă dreptul comunitar şi în special Directiva privind dreptul cetăţenilor Uniunii la liberă circulaţie şi şedere pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene se opune legislaţiei româneşti care permite restrângerea dreptului unui resortisant al unui stat membru de a se deplasa pe teritoriul unui alt stat membru, în special pentru motivul că se afla acolo în situaţie de „şedere ilegală”.

Curtea arată mai întâi că, în calitate de resortisant român, domnul Jipa se bucură de statutul de cetăţean al Uniunii şi, prin urmare, poate să se prevaleze de drepturile aferente unui astfel de statut, inclusiv faţă de statul membru de origine. Curtea aminteşte că dreptul de liberă circulaţie cuprinde atât dreptul pentru cetăţenii Uniunii care deţin cărţi de identitate valabile sau paşapoarte valabile de a intra pe teritoriul unui alt stat membru decât cel de origine, cât şi dreptul de a părăsi acest stat membru.

Totuşi, acest drept nu este necondiţionat, ci poate fi supus unor limitări şi condiţii prevăzute prin tratat, în special pentru motive de ordine publică sau de siguranţă publică. Curtea aminteşte că statele membre sunt competente să stabilească, în conformitate cu nevoile lor naţionale, cerinţele de ordine publică şi de siguranţă publică. Cu toate acestea, în contextul comunitar, cerinţele respective trebuie interpretate în mod strict, astfel încât sfera lor să nu poată fi stabilită unilateral de fiecare stat membru, fără exercitarea unui control din partea instituţiilor Comunităţii Europene.

Curtea adaugă că o astfel de încadrare implică în special faptul că, pentru a fi justificate, măsurile luate din motive de ordine publică sau de siguranţă publică trebuie să se întemeieze exclusiv pe conduita persoanei în cauză, neputând fi acceptate justificări care nu sunt direct legate de cazul respectiv sau care sunt legate de consideraţii de prevenţie generală. Curtea precizează că o măsură restrictivă trebuie adoptată în lumina unor consideraţii care ţin de protecţia ordinii publice sau a siguranţei publice a statului membru care adoptă măsura respectivă. Aşadar, aceasta nu s‑ar putea întemeia exclusiv pe motive invocate de un alt stat membru în scopul de a justifica o decizie de expulzare a unui resortisant comunitar de pe teritoriul acestui din urmă stat. Totuşi, această consideraţie nu exclude posibilitatea ca astfel de motive să fie luate în considerare în cadrul aprecierii efectuate de către autorităţile naţionale competente să adopte măsura de restrângere a liberei circulaţii.

Amintind totodată că revine instanţei de trimitere sarcina de a efectua verificările necesare, Curtea arată, în speţă, că autorităţile române par a se întemeia numai pe măsura de returnare, lipsind orice apreciere specifică a conduitei domnului Jipa şi orice referire la vreo ameninţare pe care aceasta ar constitui‑o pentru ordinea publică sau pentru siguranţa publică.

Curtea concluzionează că dreptul comunitar nu se opune unei reglementări naţionale care permite restrângerea dreptului unui resortisant al unui stat membru de a se deplasa pe teritoriul unui alt stat membru, în special pentru motivul că se afla acolo în situaţie de „şedere ilegală”, cu condiţia îndeplinirii anumitor cerinţe. Pe de o parte, conduita acestui resortisant trebuie să reprezinte o ameninţare reală, prezentă şi suficient de gravă la adresa unui interes fundamental al societăţii. Pe de altă parte, este necesar ca măsura restrictivă avută în vedere să fie aptă să garanteze realizarea obiectivului pe care îl urmăreşte şi să nu depăşească cadrul a ceea ce este necesar pentru atingerea acestuia.

Curtea adaugă că revine instanţei de trimitere sarcina să verifice dacă acesta este cazul în cauza cu a cărei soluţionare este sesizată.

Hotararea aici.

Concluzia? Sau concluziile? Destul de simple:

1. din perspectiva ordinii publice si a sigurantei publice primeaza conduita personala, iar nu motive abstracte;

2. na, art. 234 CE, ergo instanta de trimitere se pronunta asupra proportionalitatii…

Respectivele concluzii se cuprind in dispozitivul hotararii:

Articolul 18 CE si articolul 27 din Directiva 2004/38/CE [...] nu se opun unei reglementări nationale care permite restrângerea dreptului unui resortisant al unui stat membru de a se deplasa pe teritoriul unui alt stat membru, în special pentru motivul că a fost returnat anterior din acest stat pentru că se afla acolo în situatie de „sedere ilegală”, cu conditia ca, pe de o parte, conduita acestui resortisant să reprezinte o amenintare reală, prezentă si suficient de gravă la adresa unui interes fundamental al societătii si, pe de altă parte, măsura restrictivă avută în vedere să fie aptă să garanteze realizarea obiectivului pe care îl urmăreste si să nu depăsească cadrul a ceea ce este necesar pentru atingerea acestuia. Îi revine instantei de trimitere sarcina să verifice dacă acesta este cazul în cauza cu a cărei solutionare este sesizată.

 

 

 

 


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, Nerkowskaaici.

 

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″.


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.


Posted in cetatenia UE
Pagina Următoare »

    Domnia cantitatii & semnele vremurilor

    • 109,197 uitaturi pe blog