EU w8 Flashcards
Subject 1: Introduction to European Citizenship
We continue the theme around European Citizenship. This was introduced two weeks ago, and this week we will expand on it. where two weeks ago we dealt with European Citizenship when it comes to, for example, non-economically active persons who do migrate. This week we go into persons who do not migrate and have a derived right of residence and we go into revoking European Citizenship. Both topics are based on art. 20 TFEU.
Article 20 TFEU
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
a. the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
b. the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;
c. the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
d. the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
these rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted there under.
tip:
deze week gaan wij dus verder in op het European Citizenship. Zoals jullie wss al gelezen hebben, brengt het feit dat je in een lidstaat woont bepaalde rechten met zich mee. Deze week gaan wij in op ‘the derived right of residence’ en ‘the revoking of EU citizenship’.
Subject 1: Introduction to European Citizenship
Subject 2: Roadmap - the derived rights of residence art. 20 TFEU & CRD
this roadmap therefore deals with the derived rights of residence. This means that certain family members from third countries (also called third-country nationals) may have a derived right of residence somewhere because they are relatives (familieleden) of an EU citizen.
Essentie leerstuk
In dit onderdeel gaat het dus niet om the right of residence van een EU citizen. Het gaat om een afgeleid recht van een verblijf omdat je een familielid bent van iemand die de nationaliteit heeft van een EU-lidstaat. Je ziet in dit stappenplan duidelijk naar voren komen dat niet alleen de inwoners van lidstaten bepaalde EU-rechten hebben. Ook familieleden kunnen deze rechten hebben.
Een belangrijk gezichtspunt waarin je de casus kunt herkennen en kunt koppelen aan dit stappenplan is wanneer het om een kind gaat. De meeste toepassingen van art. 20 TFEU komen voor wanneer er sprake is van een kind dat een EU nationaliteit heeft en een ouder die dat niet heeft en zou moeten vertrekken van EU-grondgebied. Houd dit gezichtspunt in je achterhoofd als je de casusvragen maakt op het tentamen!
In het kader van dit stappenplan gaat het altijd om een EU-burger en een familielid die geen EU-burger is, een zogenaamde ‘third country national’. Een ander belangrijk kenmerk is dat het bij art. 20 TFEU niet gaat om ‘workers ‘ of ‘self-employed’ personen.
Step 1: Does art. 21 TFEU apply?
art. 20 TFEU can only apply where art. 21 TFEU does not. If you compare the two articles you can see that art. 20 TFEU does not require a cross-border element, whereas art. 21 TFEU and the CRD do. Below is another brief outline of when the CRD applies. Please note that if you conclude that the CRD applies, then art. 20 TFEU does not apply. and you can not follow the next steps.
- The CRD is the specific law that accompanies art. 21 TFEU. Therefore, you always check whether the CRD applies.
- art. 2 and 3 of the CRD set out the cases in which the CRD applies. According to article 3 (1) of the CRD, it applies to ‘all union citizens who move to or reside in a member state other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of art. 2 who accompany or join them’.
- it is important that the Union citizen moves to or reside in another member state. Art. 2 defines the main terms:
1 art. 2 (1) CRD gives the definition of a Union citizen: ‘any person having the nationality of a member state’.
2 art. 2 (2) CRD gives the definiton of family members. the main family members are listed below:
- the spouse
- the partner in a registered partnership
- the direct descendant.
let op!
De CRD is dus van toepassing op de Union Citizens maar ook op de familieleden, ongeacht of die familieleden union citizens zijn!
step 2: does art. 20 TFEU apply?
So if you have concluded that the CRD does not apply because there is no interstate element, you still must conclude that art. 20 TFEU applies. If there is an EU citizen not residing or moving to another Member State, then there is the applicability of art. 20 TFEU.
Step 3: Has the third country national family member the right of residence?
Let op! in deze week kunnen de casussen die aan bod komen erg op elkaar lijken. Vraag je zelf goed af in deze stap waarnaar gevraagd wordt. Beroept een individu op een verblijfsrecht als ‘third country national’, omdat hij/zij een familielid is van een EU-burger of wordt een beroep gedaan op het EU lidmaatschap.
Als een beroep wordt gedaan op het EU lidmaatschap dan moet je het stappenplan van subject 3 uitwerken en niet deze. Wordt er een beroep gedaan door een ‘third country national’ op een verblijfsrecht, dan zit je in het juiste stappenplan!
To see whether the third country national family member has a right to reside you need to look at the Chavez case. The relevant considerations are listed consecutively, and the relevant citation is shown. You should also set these out like this on the exam! the relevant paragraphs will be quoted provided with an explanation in Dutch. In this roadmap there is no secondary legislation. The elaboration on this step is very case-based.
The first important paragraph in the Chavez case is paragraph 65: ‘ In this case, if it were to be established, that being a matter for the referring court, that a refusal to allow residence to the third-country nationals at issue in the main proceedings would have the effect that the parties concerned would have to leave the territory of the European Union, the consequence might be a restriction on the rights conferred on their children by their status as Union citizens, in particular the right of residence, since those children might be compelled to accompany their mothers and therefore to leave the territory of the European Union, as a whole. In the event that the mothers were obliged to leave the territory of the European Union, their children would thus be deprived of genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on them by their status as Union citizens (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 September 2016, Rendón Marín, C 165/14, EU:C:2016:675, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).’
In paragraph 68 and 69 the Court further elaborates: ‘In that regard, it must be recalled that, in the judgment of 6 December 2012, O and Others (C 356/11 and C 357/11, EU:C:2012:776, paragraphs 51 and 56), the Court held that factors of relevance, for the purposes of determining whether a refusal to grant a right of residence to a third-country national parent of a child who is a Union citizen means that that child is deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by that status, include the question of who has custody (voogdij) of the child and whether that child is legally, financially or emotionally dependent on the third-country national parent.’ (Par. 68)
‘As regards the second factor, the Court has stated that it is the relationship of dependency between the Union citizen who is a minor and the third country national who is refused a right of residence that is liable to jeopardize the effectiveness of Union citizenship, since it is that dependency that would lead to the Union citizen being obliged, in practice, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also that of the European Union as a whole, as a consequence of such a refusal (see, to that effect, judgments of 8 March 2011, Ruiz Zambrano, C 34/09, EU:C:2011:124, paragraphs 43 and 45; of 15 November 2011, Dereci and Others, C 256/11, EU:C:2011:734, paragraphs 65 to 67; and of 6 December 2012, O and Others, C 356/11 and C 357/11, EU:C:2012:776, paragraph 56).’ (Paragraph 69)
uitleg:
in deze paragraaf zie je duidelijk terugkomen dat een familielid van een EU-burger een recht om te verblijven kan krijgen als er sprake is van een afhankelijk relatie tussen beide. Die afhankelijkheid zal ervoor zorgen dat de EU-burger mocht het familielid geen recht om te verblijven hebben, de lidstaat moet verlaten en hoogstwaarschijnlijk het hele gebied van de Europese Unie. Dus uit deze par. vloeit voort dat er sprake moet zijn van een afhankelijke relatie die ervoor zorgt dat de EU-lidstaat zijn /haar familielid zal volgen buiten de EU. in het kader van een kind kun je de afhankelijke relatie vaststellen door onder andere te kijken naar wie de voogdij over het kind heeft en of het kind juridisch, financieel of emotioneel afhankelijk is van de ‘third country’ ouder.
In paragraph 70 and 71 the Court gives the relevant viewpoints to conclude a dependent relation: ‘In this case, in order to assess the risk that a particular child, who is a Union citizen, might be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union and thereby be deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by Article 20 TFEU if the child’s third-country national parent were to be refused a right of residence in the Member State concerned, it is important to determine, in each case at issue in the main proceedings, which parent is the primary carer of the child and whether there is in fact a relationship of dependency between the child and the third-country national parent. As part of that assessment, the competent authorities must take account of the right to respect for family life, as stated in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that Article requiring to be read in conjunction with the obligation to consider the best interests of the child, recognized in Article 24(2) of that charter.’ (Paragraph 70)
‘For the purposes of such an assessment, the fact that the other parent, a Union citizen, is actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is a relevant factor, but it is not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there is not, between the third-country national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union if a right of residence were refused to that third-country national. In reaching such a conclusion, account must be taken, in the best interests of the child concerned, of all the specific circumstances, including the age of the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties both to the Union citizen parent and to the third-country national parent, and the risks which separation from the latter might entail for that child’s equilibrium.’ (Paragraph 71)
uitleg:
om de afhankelijkheid te kunnen vaststellen moeten een aantal belangrijke omstandigheden in ogenschouw worden genomen. In deze zaak ging het om een kind:
- de leeftijd,
- de lichamelijke en emotionele ontwikkeling
- de mate van de affectieve relatie met het familielid (emotionele banden met de Unie ouders als third-country national parent)
- het risico op het evenwicht van de EU-burger als het familielid vertrekt.
het feit dat (zo werd dat bepaald in de Chavez zaak) een ouder niet de dagelijkse zorg op zich neemt, hoeft niet te betekenen dat er geen afhankelijkheidsrelatie bestaat tussen deze ouder en het kind. Om te bepalen of de EU-burger in afhankelijkheid staat tot the ‘third country national’ moet je altijd een onderzoek doen aan de hand van de elementen die in het begin van deze alinea zijn opgesomd.
hieronder volgt een voorbeeld:
Anne is drie jaar oud en woont bij haar vader in Amsterdam. Anne heeft de Nederlandse nationaliteit, maar haar moeder van Iraanse afkomst en woont momenteel in Groningen. Helaas moet Anna haar moeder het land verlaten. Ondanks dat de Iraanse vrouw niet voor Anna zorgt, kan Anna door haar leeftijd en haar ontwikkeling (ze is pas drie jaar oud) wel in een afhankelijke relatie staan tot haar moeder.
Conclusie van de stappen.
Om dus te bepalen of er sprake is van een ‘derived right of residence’ moet er sprake zijn van het volgende:
- de niet toepasselijkheid van art. 21 TFEU
- de toepasselijkheid van art. 20 TFEU
het moet gaan om een EU-burger die zich niet verplaatst naar een andere lidstaat. - een afhankelijke relatie tussen het familielid en de EU-burger. Daarbij kijken naar de volgende gezichtspunten:
- de leeftijd
- de lichamelijke en emotionele ontwikkeling
- de mate van de affectieve relatie met het familielid
- het risico op het evenwicht van de EU-burger als het familielid vertrekt.
Subject 2: Roadmap - the derived rights of residence art. 20 TFEU & CRD
Subject 3: roadmap - the revoking of the EU citizenship
This roadmap is about losing EU citizenship. Nationality with the EU comes with certain rights, but you can also lose these rights. This roadmap looks at when EU citizenship can be taken. This roadmap is not about revoking the EU nationality itself; it is about the revoking of the nationality of a Member State. if a person has the nationality of a third country and a Member State and loses the nationality of that Member State, the EU nationality is revoked automatically.
Step 1: Does art. 21 TFEU apply?
Art. 20 TFEU can only apply where Article 21 TFEU does not. If you compare the two Articles, you can see that Article 20 TFEU does not require a cross-border element, whereas Article 21 TFEU and the CRD do. Below is another brief outline of when the CRD applies. Please note that if you conclude that the CRD applies, then Article 20 TFEU does not apply and you cannot follow the next steps.
- The CRD is the specific law that accompanies Article 21 TFEU. Therefore, you always check whether the CRD applies.
- Articles 2 and 3 of the CRD set out the cases in which the CRD applies. According to Article 3(1) of the CRD, it applies to ‘all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.’
- It is important that the Union citizen moves to or resides in another Member State. Article 2 defines the main terms:
o Article 2(1) CRD gives the definition of a Union citizen: ‘any person having the nationality of a Member State’.
o Article 2(2) CRD gives the definition of family members. The main family members are listed below:
The spouse
The partner in a registered partnership
The direct descendant
Let op!
De CRD is dus van toepassing op de union citizens, maar ook de familieleden, ongeacht of die familileden union citizens zijn!
Step 2: Does Article 20 TFEU apply?
So, if you have concluded that the CRD and Article 21 TFEU do not apply, you must still conclude that Article 20 TFEU applies. If there is an EU citizen not residing or moving to another Member State, then there is the applicability of Article 20 TFEU.
Step 3: determining if the EU citizenship can be revoked
For the determination if the EU citizenship can be revoked, we look at the Tjebbes case. The relevant par. will be quoted provided with an explanation in Dutch.
Firstly paragraph 30: ‘In that respect, it is important to bear in mind that the Court has already held that, while it is for each Member State, having due regard to international law, to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality, the fact that a matter falls within the competence of the Member States does not alter the fact that, in situations covered by EU law, the national rules concerned must have due regard to the latter (judgment of 2 March 2010, Rottmann, C 135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraphs 39 and 41 and the case-law citedH).’
uitleg:
In deze par. komt naar voren dat de lidstaten zelf mogen bepalen onder welke voorwaarden en wanneer de nationaliteit van die landen verloren wordt. Dit houdt dus in dat op Europees niveau geen universele regels zijn gegeven wanneer lidstaten de nationaliteit van een burger intrekken. Dit mag dus op het niveau van de lidstaten bepaald worden.
In paragraph 32 the Courts conclude secondly the following: ‘Accordingly, the situation of citizens of the Union who, like the applicants in the main proceedings, are nationals of one Member State only and who, by losing that nationality, are faced with losing the status conferred by Article 20 TFEU and the rights attaching thereto falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the ambit of EU law. Thus, the Member States must, when exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality, have due regard to EU law (judgment of 2 March 2010, Rottmann, C 135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraphs 42 and 45).’
uitleg:
In deze par. komt naar voren dat wanneer een persoon de nationaliteit heeft van bijv. een niet-lidstaat en een lidstaat en de nationaliteit van de lidstaat verliest, hij/zij ook de nationaliteit van de EU verliest. Belangrijk is dat het verliezen van de EU nationaliteit gepaard moet gaan met een zekere voorzichtigheid (Due regard). EU recht moet in acht worden genomen zoals de beginselen van ‘legitimate aim’ en ‘proportionaliteit’.
In paragraph 37 we can also see that the nationality of a Member State can be revoked, but the person in question must not become stateless: ‘The legitimacy, in principle, of the loss of the nationality of a Member State in those situations is indeed supported by the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7(3) to (6) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which provide that, in similar situations, a person may lose the nationality of a Contracting State in so far as he does not become stateless. The risk of becoming stateless is precluded, in the present case, by the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings, given that their application is conditional on the possession by the person concerned of the nationality of another State in addition to Netherlands nationality. Similarly, Article 7(1)(e) and (2) of the Convention on Nationality provides that a State Party may provide for the loss of its nationality, inter alia, in the case of an adult, where there is no genuine link between that State and a national habitually residing abroad and, in the case of a minor, for children whose parents lose the nationality of that State.’
uitleg:
een belangrijk punt wat je altijd nog moet controleren bij een casus is of de persoon in kwestie niet ‘staatloos’ wordt. Dat is het geval bij personen die maar 1 EU nationaliteit hebben. Wordt deze nationaliteit afgenomen dan ben je in principe ‘stateless’.
Legitimate aim
In paragraph 35 the court elaborates on the legitimate aim: ‘As mentioned by the Advocate General in points 53 and 55 of his Opinion, when exercising its competence to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality, it is legitimate for a Member State to take the view that nationality is the expression of a genuine link between it and its nationals, and therefore to prescribe that the absence, or the loss, of any such genuine link entails the loss of nationality. It is also legitimate for a Member State to wish to protect the unity of nationality within the same family.’
uitleg
Een legitimate aim is, zoals in de par. voorkomt, een gebrek aan ‘a genuine link’ tussen een lidstaat en haar burgers. Dit komt bijv. voor als er sprake is van terrorisme. Naar voren moet komen dat er zo’n ernstige schade wordt aangericht aan een lidstaat dat niet meer gezegd kan worden dat de desbetreffende persoon een ‘genuine link’ heeft met de lidstaat.
in par. 36 the Courts elaborates on a child-parent relationship: ‘In that regard, a criterion such as that laid down in Article 15(1)(c) of the Law on Nationality, which is based on the habitual residence of nationals of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for an uninterrupted period of 10 years, outside that Member State and outside the territories to which the EU Treaty applies, may be regarded as an indication that there is no such link. Similarly, as stated by the Netherlands Government with regard to Article 16(1)(d) of that law, the lack of a genuine link between the parents of a child who is a minor and the Kingdom of the Netherlands can be understood, in principle, as a lack of a genuine link between the child and that Member State.’
uitleg:
Deze par. zet uiteen dat wanneer een ouder geen ‘genuine link’ heeft met de lidstaat, dan kan geconcludeerd worden dat het kind dat ook niet heeft. Wanneer er dus sprake is van een ouder die geen ‘genuine link’ heeft, omdat hij/zij bijv. ernstige terroristische misdrijven richting de lidstaat heeft gepleegd, kan geconcludeerd worden dat het kind ook geen ‘genuine link’ heeft. Let hier ook altijd op wanneer de nationaliteit van een minderjarige kind wordt afgenomen: hebben de ouders een ‘genuine link’ met de lidstaat?
Proportionality
In the paragraphs 40, 41, 45, 46 & 47 the Court further elaborates on the proportionality.
‘However, it is for the competent national authorities and the national courts to determine whether the loss of the nationality of the Member State concerned, when it entails the loss of citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, has due regard to the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences of that loss for the situation of the person concerned and, if relevant, for that of the members of his or her family, from the point of view of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 March 2010, Rottmann, C 135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraphs 55 and 56).’ (Paragraph 40)
Nadere uitleg van Lawbooks
In deze paragraaf komt naar voren dat rekening moet worden gehouden met het beginsel van proportionaliteit.
‘The loss of the nationality of a Member State by operation of law would be inconsistent with the principle of proportionality if the relevant national rules did not permit at any time an individual examination of the consequences of that loss for the persons concerned from the point of view of EU law.’ (Paragraph 41)
uitleg:
In deze par. komt naar voren dat wanneer geen individuele toets wordt gedaan, het innemen van een nationaliteit van een lidstaat niet volgens het beginsel van proportionaliteit is.
‘As part of that examination of proportionality, it is, in particular, for the competent national authorities and, where appropriate, for the national courts to ensure that the loss of nationality is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, the observance of which the Court ensures, and specifically the right to respect for family life as stated in Article 7 of the Charter, that Article requiring to be read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the best interests of the child, recognised in Article 24(2) of the Charter (judgment of 10 May 2017, Chavez-Vilchez and Others, C 133/15, EU:C:2017:354, paragraph 70).’ (Paragraph 45)
uitleg:
Bij de individuele toets moet rekening gehouden worden met het fundamentele rechten uit the Charter, specifiek ‘the right to respect for family life’.
‘As regards the circumstances of the individual situation of the person concerned, which are likely to be relevant in the assessment that the competent national authorities and national courts are to carry out in the present case, it must be mentioned, in particular, that following the loss, by operation of law, of Netherlands nationality and of citizenship of the Union the person concerned would be exposed to limitations when exercising his or her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, including, depending on the circumstances, particular difficulties in continuing to travel to the Netherlands or to another Member State in order to retain genuine and regular links with members of his or her family, to pursue his or her professional activity or to undertake the necessary steps to pursue that activity. Also relevant are (i) the fact that the person concerned might not have been able to renounce the nationality of a third country and that person thus falls within the scope of Article 15(1)(c) of the Law on Nationality and (ii) the serious risk, to which the person concerned would be exposed, that his or her safety or freedom to come and go would substantially deteriorate because of the impossibility for that person to enjoy consular protection under Article 20(2)(c) TFEU in the territory of the third country in which that person resides.’ (Paragraph 46)
‘As for minors, the competent administrative and judicial authorities must also take into account, in the context of their individual examination, possible circumstances from which it is apparent that the loss of Netherlands nationality by the minor concerned, which the national legislature has attached to the loss of Netherlands nationality by one of his or her parents in order to preserve unity of nationality within the family, fails to meet the child’s best interests as enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter because of the consequences of that loss for the minor from the point of view of EU law.’ (Paragraph 47)
uitleg:
in deze beide par. komt naar voren welke gezichtspunten meegenomen moeten worden in de individuele toets:
Voorbeelden zijn:
- de hindering om familie op te zoeken
- de hindering om te werken
- het verliezen van ‘consolar protection’
- de onmogelijkheid om afstand te doen van ‘the third country nationality’
- bij kinderen wordt expliciet opgelet op een mogelijke schending van art. 24 van de Charter.
Conclusie
In dit stappenplan gaat het dus om het innemen van de nationaliteit van een lidstaat. Dan wordt ook de EU-nationaliteit automatisch ingenomen. Daarvoor dient de persoon niet zonder nationaliteit komen te zitten. Er dient ook sprake te zijn van een ‘legitimate aim’ and ‘proportionality’
Subject 3: roadmap - the revoking of the EU citizenship
Let op!
De CRD is dus van toepassing op de union citizens, maar ook de familieleden, ongeacht of die familileden union citizens zijn!
Let op!
De CRD is dus van toepassing op de union citizens, maar ook de familieleden, ongeacht of die familileden union citizens zijn!
Ruiz Zambrano
Onderwerp
Afgeleide verblijfsrechten voor niet-Unieburgers
Casus
Een stel uit Colombia kreeg gedurende hun illegale periode van zeven jaar in België twee kinderen. In België gold het ius sanguinis beginsel en daardoor kregen de twee kinderen de Belgische nationaliteit. Zij waren Unieburgers. Op een gegeven moment wilde België het gezin terugsturen naar Colombia. Als de ouders het land uit worden gezet, dan moeten de kinderen mee. De facto moeten zij het grondgebied van de EU verlaten.
Rechtsvragen
Het Hof van Justitie moest de volgende vraag beantwoorden: Verlenen artikel 18, 20 en 21 VWEU een verblijfsrecht aan de burger van de Unie op het grondgebied van de lidstaat waarvan deze burger de nationaliteit bezit, ongeacht de eerdere uitoefening van zijn recht om op het grondgebied van de lidstaten te reizen?
Conclusie
Het Hof van Justitie lost dit op doordat als een nationale maatregel het gevolg heeft dat het effectieve genot van de belangrijkste aan hun status van burger ontleende rechten wordt ontnomen, dan is het EU-recht van toepassing op die situatie (r.o. 42). Met andere woorden: als de ouders worden uitgezet, dan moeten de kinderen mee en dat betekent voor de kinderen het verlies van de belangrijkste rechten die verbonden zijn aan het Unieburgerschap. In artikel 20 VWEU ziet het Hof van Justitie een recht om het effectieve genot van de belangrijkste aan hun status van burger van de EU ontleende rechten (r.o. 45).
Ruiz Zambrano
Onderwerp
Afgeleide verblijfsrechten voor niet-Unieburgers
Casus
Een stel uit Colombia kreeg gedurende hun illegale periode van zeven jaar in België twee kinderen. In België gold het ius sanguinis beginsel en daardoor kregen de twee kinderen de Belgische nationaliteit. Zij waren Unieburgers. Op een gegeven moment wilde België het gezin terugsturen naar Colombia. Als de ouders het land uit worden gezet, dan moeten de kinderen mee. De facto moeten zij het grondgebied van de EU verlaten.
Chavez-Vilchez (Case C-133/15)
Relevantie: Om te zien of het gezinslid met de nationaliteit van een derde land een verblijfsrecht heeft, moet je kijken naar de zaak Chavez.
Relevante feiten: This case is about several women who did not possess a residence permit. Have a read of the different situations of the women themselves. The most important thing for the facts is that you remember that child benefit was denied to every one of the women. If the mothers could derive a right of residence under Article 20 TFEU of their children, then they can be equated with Dutch nationals and be eligible for child benefit. After all, the children did have Dutch citizenship (EU-citizens).
Beoordeling: In paragraphs 65, 68 and 69, you can clearly see that a family member of an EU citizen can be granted a right to reside if there is a dependent relationship between the two. That dependency will ensure that, should the family member not have a right to stay, the EU citizen will have to leave the Member State and most likely the whole area of the European Union. So, it follows from this paragraph that there must be a dependent relationship that ensures that the EU Member State will follow his/her relative outside the EU. In the context of a child, you can establish the dependent relationship by looking, among other things, at who has custody of the child and whether the child is legally, financially, or emotionally dependent on the ‘third country’ parent.
The following occurs in paragraphs 70 and 71: To establish dependency, several important circumstances must be considered. This case involved a child:
* Age,
* The physical and emotional development
* The extent of the affective relationship with the family member
* The risk to the balance of the EU citizen if the family member leaves
The fact (this was determined in the Chavez case) that a parent does not provide day-to-day care does not necessarily mean that there is no dependency relationship between this parent and the child. To determine whether the EU citizen is in a dependency relationship with the ‘third country national’, you should always make an enquiry using the elements listed at the beginning of this paragraph.
Chavez-Vilchez (Case C-133/15)
Relevantie: Om te zien of het gezinslid met de nationaliteit van een derde land een verblijfsrecht heeft, moet je kijken naar de zaak Chavez.
Relevante feiten: This case is about several women who did not possess a residence permit. Have a read of the different situations of the women themselves. The most important thing for the facts is that you remember that child benefit was denied to every one of the women. If the mothers could derive a right of residence under Article 20 TFEU of their children, then they can be equated with Dutch nationals and be eligible for child benefit. After all, the children did have Dutch citizenship (EU-citizens).
Beoordeling: In paragraphs 65, 68 and 69, you can clearly see that a family member of an EU citizen can be granted a right to reside if there is a dependent relationship between the two. That dependency will ensure that, should the family member not have a right to stay, the EU citizen will have to leave the Member State and most likely the whole area of the European Union. So, it follows from this paragraph that there must be a dependent relationship that ensures that the EU Member State will follow his/her relative outside the EU. In the context of a child, you can establish the dependent relationship by looking, among other things, at who has custody of the child and whether the child is legally, financially, or emotionally dependent on the ‘third country’ parent.
The following occurs in paragraphs 70 and 71: To establish dependency, several important circumstances must be considered. This case involved a child:
* Age,
* The physical and emotional development
* The extent of the affective relationship with the family member
* The risk to the balance of the EU citizen if the family member leaves
The fact (this was determined in the Chavez case) that a parent does not provide day-to-day care does not necessarily mean that there is no dependency relationship between this parent and the child. To determine whether the EU citizen is in a dependency relationship with the ‘third country national’, you should always make an enquiry using the elements listed at the beginning of this paragraph.
Tjebbes (Case C-221/17)
Relevantie: Voor de vaststelling of het EU-burgerschap kan worden ingetrokken, kijken we naar de zaak Tjebbes.
Relevante feiten: This case is about several persons holding dual nationality (including the dutch). However, the application for a Dutch passport was rejected. Read up on the individual situations yourself! The question is whether this is compatible with EU law.
Beoordeling: Paragraph 30 reveals that Member States may decide for themselves under what conditions and when their nationality is lost. This therefore implies that no universal rules have been given at the European level when Member States revoke a citizen’s nationality. This may therefore be determined at the Member State level. Paragraph 32 highlights that when a person holds the nationality of, say, a non-Member State and a Member State and loses the nationality of the Member State, he/she also loses EU nationality. Importantly, losing EU nationality should be accompanied by a degree of caution (voorzichtigheid) (due regard). EU law should be observed such as the principles of a ‘legitimate aim’ and proportionality. An important point raised in paragraph 37 is that you should always still check in a case is whether the person in question does not become ‘stateless’. This is the case with persons who have only 1 EU nationality. If this nationality is taken away, you are in principle ‘stateless’.
A legitimate aim, as occurs in the paragraph, is a lack of ‘a genuine link’ between a Member State and its citizens. This occurs, for example, when terrorism is involved. It must emerge that such serious harm is done to a Member State that the person in question can no longer be said to have a ‘genuine link’ with the Member State. This is reflected in paragraph 35.
Paragraph 36 explains that if a parent does not have a ‘genuine link’ to the Member State, then it can be concluded that neither does the child. Thus, when there is a parent who does not have a ‘genuine link’ because, for example, he/she has committed serious terrorist offences towards the Member State, it can be concluded that the child does not have a ‘genuine link’ either. Also, always pay attention to this when the nationality of a minor child is taken away: do the parents have a ‘genuine link’ to the Member State?
Paragraph 40 highlights the need to consider the principle of proportionality. Paragraph 41 suggests that if no individual test is done, taking a nationality of a Member State is not according to the principle of proportionality. The individual test must also consider the Charter’s fundamental rights, specifically ‘the right to respect family life’. This is discussed in paragraph 45.
Both paragraphs 46 and 47 reveal which points of view should be considered in the individual test. Examples are:
* The impediment to seeking family
* The disincentive to work
* The loss of ‘consolar protection’
* The impossibility of renouncing third-country nationality.
* In the case of children, explicit attention is paid to a possible violation of Article 24 of the Charter
Tjebbes (Case C-221/17)
Relevantie: Voor de vaststelling of het EU-burgerschap kan worden ingetrokken, kijken we naar de zaak Tjebbes.
Relevante feiten: This case is about several persons holding dual nationality (including the dutch). However, the application for a Dutch passport was rejected. Read up on the individual situations yourself! The question is whether this is compatible with EU law.
Beoordeling: Paragraph 30 reveals that Member States may decide for themselves under what conditions and when their nationality is lost. This therefore implies that no universal rules have been given at the European level when Member States revoke a citizen’s nationality. This may therefore be determined at the Member State level. Paragraph 32 highlights that when a person holds the nationality of, say, a non-Member State and a Member State and loses the nationality of the Member State, he/she also loses EU nationality. Importantly, losing EU nationality should be accompanied by a degree of caution (voorzichtigheid) (due regard). EU law should be observed such as the principles of a ‘legitimate aim’ and proportionality. An important point raised in paragraph 37 is that you should always still check in a case is whether the person in question does not become ‘stateless’. This is the case with persons who have only 1 EU nationality. If this nationality is taken away, you are in principle ‘stateless’.
A legitimate aim, as occurs in the paragraph, is a lack of ‘a genuine link’ between a Member State and its citizens. This occurs, for example, when terrorism is involved. It must emerge that such serious harm is done to a Member State that the person in question can no longer be said to have a ‘genuine link’ with the Member State. This is reflected in paragraph 35.
Paragraph 36 explains that if a parent does not have a ‘genuine link’ to the Member State, then it can be concluded that neither does the child. Thus, when there is a parent who does not have a ‘genuine link’ because, for example, he/she has committed serious terrorist offences towards the Member State, it can be concluded that the child does not have a ‘genuine link’ either. Also, always pay attention to this when the nationality of a minor child is taken away: do the parents have a ‘genuine link’ to the Member State?
Paragraph 40 highlights the need to consider the principle of proportionality. Paragraph 41 suggests that if no individual test is done, taking a nationality of a Member State is not according to the principle of proportionality. The individual test must also consider the Charter’s fundamental rights, specifically ‘the right to respect family life’. This is discussed in paragraph 45.
Both paragraphs 46 and 47 reveal which points of view should be considered in the individual test. Examples are:
* The impediment to seeking family
* The disincentive to work
* The loss of ‘consolar protection’
* The impossibility of renouncing third-country nationality.
* In the case of children, explicit attention is paid to a possible violation of Article 24 of the Charter
V.M.A. (Case C-490/20)
Relevantie: Deze zaak geeft een toepassing van artikel 21 TFEU.
Relevante feiten: This case involves V.M.A. who is a citizen of Bulgaria. K.D.K is a citizen of the United Kingdom. They live in Spain and have a daughter who lives with both of them. They are both declared as mothers in the spanish birth certificate. VMA asked the municipality of Sofia (in Bulgaria) asked for the birth certificate on which they had to provide proof of information about the biological mother. So that the daughter could obtain the nationality of Bulgaria. Bulgaria refused to issue a birth certificate because no information about the biological mother was given and declaring two parents of the same sex is not accepted.
Beoordeling: This judgment revisits a blanket application of Article 21 TFEU. Read this again. This is very useful! Indeed, if you lose the roadmap on the exam, you can fall back on judgments like this. The new rule of law is introduced in paragraph 52. In it, it emerges that Member States are free to regulate certain matters on same-sex marriage.
However, Union law must be observed such as Article 21 TFEU. This can ensure that a particular marital status must be accepted. Paragraph 65 goes on to say that the grounds rights of the child to deny the relationship with his parents by making the exercise of the right to reside and travel freely in Member States difficult or impossible purely on the grounds that the parents are of the same sex. Member States are then obliged to issue an identity card, without first having to recognise a birth certificate (paragraph 69).
V.M.A. (Case C-490/20)
Relevantie: Deze zaak geeft een toepassing van artikel 21 TFEU.
Relevante feiten: This case involves V.M.A. who is a citizen of Bulgaria. K.D.K is a citizen of the United Kingdom. They live in Spain and have a daughter who lives with both of them. They are both declared as mothers in the spanish birth certificate. VMA asked the municipality of Sofia (in Bulgaria) asked for the birth certificate on which they had to provide proof of information about the biological mother. So that the daughter could obtain the nationality of Bulgaria. Bulgaria refused to issue a birth certificate because no information about the biological mother was given and declaring two parents of the same sex is not accepted.
Beoordeling: This judgment revisits a blanket application of Article 21 TFEU. Read this again. This is very useful! Indeed, if you lose the roadmap on the exam, you can fall back on judgments like this. The new rule of law is introduced in paragraph 52. In it, it emerges that Member States are free to regulate certain matters on same-sex marriage.
However, Union law must be observed such as Article 21 TFEU. This can ensure that a particular marital status must be accepted. Paragraph 65 goes on to say that the grounds rights of the child to deny the relationship with his parents by making the exercise of the right to reside and travel freely in Member States difficult or impossible purely on the grounds that the parents are of the same sex. Member States are then obliged to issue an identity card, without first having to recognise a birth certificate (paragraph 69).
Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 (N.S. and M.E.)
Relevantie: In deze zaken wordt de interpretatie en toepassing van de criteria besproken welke zien op het beslissen van welke EU lidstaat verantwoordelijk is voor de beoordeling van asielaanvragen.
Rechtsvraag: Kan een lidstaat een asielzoekers asielaanvraag doorverwijzen naar een andere lidstaat, of dient de lidstaat deze aanvraag zelf te beoordelen?
Relevante feiten: The individuals involved were asylum seekers in the European Union, who were facing transfer to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. N.S., an Afghan national, sought asylum in the United Kingdom but was facing transfer to Greece as it was the country through which he had entered the EU. M.E., along with other applicants of Iranian and Palestinian nationality, sought asylum in Ireland and also faced transfer to Greece as per the Dublin II Regulation. The Dublin II Regulation aimed to establish a clear mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application to prevent “asylum shopping” where applicants could apply in multiple countries or choose the country with the most favorable asylum procedures.
Beoordeling: In these specific cases, the court addressed the question of whether EU Member States are obliged to examine an asylum application, or if they can transfer the asylum seeker to another Member State under the Dublin II Regulation. The particular issue arose because the asylum seekers were to be transferred to Greece, but they argued against the transfer due to the deficient asylum system and poor detention conditions in Greece.
The Court ruled that Member States cannot transfer asylum seekers to another Member State if they cannot ensure that the asylum seeker won’t be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as per the standards outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling was significant because it established that Member States have a duty to examine the conditions in the country the asylum seeker is to be transferred to, and if those conditions fall below acceptable standards, the transferring state must take responsibility for examining the asylum application.
Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 (N.S. and M.E.)
Relevantie: In deze zaken wordt de interpretatie en toepassing van de criteria besproken welke zien op het beslissen van welke EU lidstaat verantwoordelijk is voor de beoordeling van asielaanvragen.
Rechtsvraag: Kan een lidstaat een asielzoekers asielaanvraag doorverwijzen naar een andere lidstaat, of dient de lidstaat deze aanvraag zelf te beoordelen?
Relevante feiten: The individuals involved were asylum seekers in the European Union, who were facing transfer to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. N.S., an Afghan national, sought asylum in the United Kingdom but was facing transfer to Greece as it was the country through which he had entered the EU. M.E., along with other applicants of Iranian and Palestinian nationality, sought asylum in Ireland and also faced transfer to Greece as per the Dublin II Regulation. The Dublin II Regulation aimed to establish a clear mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application to prevent “asylum shopping” where applicants could apply in multiple countries or choose the country with the most favorable asylum procedures.
Beoordeling: In these specific cases, the court addressed the question of whether EU Member States are obliged to examine an asylum application, or if they can transfer the asylum seeker to another Member State under the Dublin II Regulation. The particular issue arose because the asylum seekers were to be transferred to Greece, but they argued against the transfer due to the deficient asylum system and poor detention conditions in Greece.
The Court ruled that Member States cannot transfer asylum seekers to another Member State if they cannot ensure that the asylum seeker won’t be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as per the standards outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling was significant because it established that Member States have a duty to examine the conditions in the country the asylum seeker is to be transferred to, and if those conditions fall below acceptable standards, the transferring state must take responsibility for examining the asylum application.
hc aant. deel 1
The context of European citizenship in EU Law
- The internal market based on free movement and abolishing trade barriers within the European Union (at that time Community)
- Free movement of capital, services, goods and economically active persons (freedom of establishment and workers)
- EU citizenship is developed from the internal market freedoms, but has also its own characteristics
- Non-economically active persons and in specific circumstances without a cross-border element
In short: economic free movement of persons
- Free movement of workers: Article 45 TFEU
- Freedom of establishment (self-employed): Article 49 TFEU
Prohibition to restrict the free movement of economically active persons, unless objectively and proportionally justified.
The context of European citizenship in EU Law
- Spanish proposal ‘The Road to European Citizenship’
- Directives on free movement of persons beyond workers and self-employed → still an economic link
- European citizenship as legal concept introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993
EU citizens has NO DUTIES!! EU citizens needs wel to comply with conditions or has responsibly’s under law. But no paying tax or go to the European Army etc.
The context of European citizenship in EU Law
- Establishment of the EU: ‘an ever closing Union among peoples’
- ‘Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’
Relevant legislation and citizens’ rights
- First: Three Directives of 1990’s: limited in scope
- Since April 2006: Directive 2004/38 on the free movement of persons (broad personal scope: economically active and non-active Union citizens and TCN)
- Specific citizenship rights in the TFEU and the Charter on Fundamental rights (binding since Dec 2009)
Relevant legislation and citizens’ rights
- Article 18 to 24 TFEU
- Personal scope of Union citizenship: Who are Union citizens? (EU-nationality!)
- The right to free movement – up until now: most important! You can go to another member state.
- Electoral rights: equal treatment EP and ME
- (Equal) diplomatic protection in TC
- Petition to EP and Ombudsman
- Since Lisbon(2009): citizens’ initiative: 1 million citizens from a significant amount of MS
- http://ec.europa.eu/citizensinitiative/public/initiatives/ongoing
Two ways for EU citizenship rights
- Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38: Free movement (only for free movement situations)
- Article 20 TFEU: static EU citizens (very limited) (EU citizens that has not used their citizens rights)
Citizenship and equal treatment
- Article 18 in conjunction with 21 TFEU: cf. Martinez Sala
..’ a citizen of the European Union lawfully resident in the territory of the host Member State, can rely on Article 6 [18 TFEU] in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae of Community law’
Included in Article 24 of Directive 2004/38
- Reverse discrimination: Metock, par. 78: ” Any difference in treatment between those Union citizens and those who have exercised their right of freedom of movement, as regards the entry and residence of their family members, does not … fall within the scope of Community law.”
Reverse discrimination = situation person A is Dutch and lives in NL, person B is from Belgium also living in NL. Person b from another nationality has more advantages than the person that did not move? Question is, is that oke? Possible? Court said > Citizens that not move we can not give them any rights!
Article 21 TFEU - “Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.”
- Directive 2004/38 – specific limitations and conditions
- Case-law: free movement and non-discrimination (Martinez Sala) and restrictions to free movement (D’Hoop, Garcia-Avello, or Z.W. - Criminal offence specifically concerning international child abduction )
Article 21 TFEU
- Example: C-454/19 Z.W (November 2020):
- German Criminal Code: 5 years detention for person who by force, threat of serious harm or deception removes and retains a child in Germany.
- Or: outside Germany without force, threat of serious harm or deception
- Is there a restriction? Yes: indirect discrimination. If you live or outside Germany is place, normally indirectly discrimination. Most Germans will stay with child in Germany and non-Germans will go with their kids out Germany.
- Justification? The protection of the fundamental rights of the child
- Proportional? Legitimate aim, but goes beyond what is necessary, since MS have mutual trust. They have cooperation and police and other authorities.
Case C 490/20, V.М.А.
- UK and Bulgarian nationals – daughter born in Spain
- Impossible to register two mothers on the birth certificate (public policy)
Question was: is this a free movement situation and is this prohibited?
- Par. 50: ‘in order to enable S.D.K.A. to exercise her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States with each of her two parents, V.M.A. and K.D.K. must have a document which mentions them as being persons entitled to travel with that child.’
if Spanish Bulgarian couple comes with they have to accept that > mutual recognition!!
|Directive 2004/38 (in line with art. 21 TFEU free movement framework)
- Right to move and reside freely: ’This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members’
CROSS-BORDER element!
Residency rights:
> 3 months – valid ID (art 6)
> 3 months – 5 years: sufficient means, healthcare insurance (art 7) voldoende middelen om bijstand bijv. te voorkomen en zorgverzekering.
> 5 years: permanent residency (art 16)
Expulsion/Restriction measures: public policy or public security, public health
|Article 20 TFEU
“Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.”
C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano
> ‘Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union’
> A right to family life?
Question: whether Miss Ruiz Zambrano can remove to Columbia. Two children got Belgium nationality.
C-256/11, Dereci
‘effectiveness of Union citizenship’
‘the criterion relating to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of European Union citizen status refers to situations in which the Union citizen has, in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also the territory of the Union as a whole.’
C-256/11, Dereci
- No family life included:
- “…the mere fact that it might appear desirable to a national of a Member State, for economic reasons or in order to keep his family together in the territory of the Union (…) is not sufficient in itself to support the view that the Union citizen will be forced to leave Union territory if such a right is not granted.
|Ruiz Zambrano in the Dutch case law
- First case: within a month in the Dutch case law
- One Dutch and a TCN parent – does the family have to stay together?
Third Country Nationals > member state outside the EU. - The right to family life part of the substance of the rights of EU citizens?
- Restrictive approach by Dutch courts – only in exceptional circumstances
- Extreme mental problems TCN
- Dutch parent no actual contact with the child
- Extreme mental problems TCN
|Chavez case May 2016
Dutch policy: Father factually able to take care of the child..
- 8 cases on social benefits for the Dutch Tribunal of Appeal
- Mother TCN – Dutch father (recognition child – Dutch nationality)
- The IND shall in any event assume that the other parent is not in fact able to care for the child if that parent:
1 – is in detention; or
2 – shows that custody of the child cannot be awarded to him/her.’
|Chavez case May 2016
- in order to assess the risk that a particular child, who is a Union citizen, might be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union and thereby be deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights .. if the child’s third-country national parent were to be refused a right of residence in the Member State concerned, it is important to determine, in each case at issue in the main proceedings, which parent is the primary carer of the child and whether there is in fact a relationship of dependency between the child and the third-country national parent.
|Tjebbes case (2019)
- Article 15(1) c and d of the Dutch Act on Nationality
- 10 years or more outside the EU
- Double nationality
- Minors lose their nationality if their parents lose their nationality due to Article 15(1)c.
|Tjebbes case
- Legitimate aim: bond between individual and the MS
- But in order to be proportional:
- ”…the competent national authorities and courts must be in a position to examine, as an ancillary issue, the consequences of the loss of that nationality and, where appropriate, to have the person concerned recover his or her nationality ex tunc (as it was) in the context of an application by that person for a travel document or any other document showing his or her nationality” (par. 42)
- Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Les: Art. 20 TFEU > static EU citizens > specific circumstances if minor is forced to leave the EU because the relationship of dependence.
|EU citizenship and Covid-19
- Schengen – border control
- Free movement of EU citizens: Directive 2004/38
- The only diseases justifying measures restricting freedom of movement shall be the diseases with epidemic potential as defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organisation (…)
- Diseases occurring after a three-month period from the date of arrival shall not constitute grounds for expulsion from the territory.
- Where there are serious indications that it is necessary, Member States may, within three months of the date of arrival, require persons entitled to the right of residence to undergo, free of charge, a medical examination to certify that they are not suffering from any of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1. Such medical examinations may not be required as a matter of routine.
hc aant. deel 1
hc aant. 2
Migration law
- Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
- European Common Asylum System
|Residence entitlement Third Country Nationals (Non- EU member states)
- TCN-Family members of EU citizens
- Economically active TCN’s
- Refugees/Asylum seekers (vluchtelingen en asielzoekers)
- Long-term residents in the EU
Les:
Important:
EU citizens has the strongest right. Then
TCN-family members of EU citizens has strongest rights.
Then long-term residents in the EU
then the other categories!
|European asylum law
- International law context:
- Geneva Convention: 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
“expressing the wish that all States, recognizing the social and humanitarian nature of the problem of refugees, will do everything within their power to prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States”
The right to asylum: EU Charter
Non-refoulement principle – article 3 and 4 ECHR.
les: you can not someone back, to stay his or her life is in danger. Fundamental right to asylum.
|Main instruments in the European Common Asylum System
- Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Directive 2013/32/EU Procedural safeguards (minimum harmonization)
- Directive 2011/95/EU Qualification Directive (who is refugees and which people fall under the definition)
- Directive 2013/33/EU Reception Conditions Directive
The Dublin System
Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Criteria to establish the responsible MS
a. Minors
b. Family members
c. issue of residence documents/visa
d. Entry/Stay
“First entry-principle” – Greece, Italy
The Dublin System: problems!
C-411/10: N.S. (CJEU) & M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (ECHR)
- mutual confidence
- “if there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in the Member State responsible, resulting in inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter”
- EU citizenship came from the internal market idea – but it is a non-economic concept, free movement criteria is loosened too (in some cases)
- Specific rights on residence for individuals (Article 20/Article 21 TFEU/Directive 2004/38)
art. 20 internal situation - Nationality and EU citizenship are much intertwined
- Third country nationals have different residency rights in the EU
as a family member you will have to check directive 2004/38 and also other grounds to stay as a TCN.
hc aant. 2
Les:
Important:
EU citizens has the strongest right. Then
TCN-family members of EU citizens has strongest rights.
Then long-term residents in the EU
then the other categories!
Les:
Important:
EU citizens has the strongest right. Then
TCN-family members of EU citizens has strongest rights.
Then long-term residents in the EU
then the other categories!
|European asylum law
- International law context:
- Geneva Convention: 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
“expressing the wish that all States, recognizing the social and humanitarian nature of the problem of refugees, will do everything within their power to prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States”
The right to asylum: EU Charter
Non-refoulement principle – article 3 and 4 ECHR.
les: you can not someone back, to stay his or her life is in danger. Fundamental right to asylum.
|Main instruments in the European Common Asylum System
- Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Directive 2013/32/EU Procedural safeguards (minimum harmonization)
- Directive 2011/95/EU Qualification Directive (who is refugees and which people fall under the definition)
- Directive 2013/33/EU Reception Conditions Directive
The Dublin System
Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Criteria to establish the responsible MS
a. Minors
b. Family members
c. issue of residence documents/visa
d. Entry/Stay
“First entry-principle” – Greece, Italy
The Dublin System: problems!
C-411/10: N.S. (CJEU) & M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (ECHR)
- mutual confidence
- “if there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in the Member State responsible, resulting in inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter”
- EU citizenship came from the internal market idea – but it is a non-economic concept, free movement criteria is loosened too (in some cases)
- Specific rights on residence for individuals (Article 20/Article 21 TFEU/Directive 2004/38)
art. 20 internal situation - Nationality and EU citizenship are much intertwined
- Third country nationals have different residency rights in the EU
as a family member you will have to check directive 2004/38 and also other grounds to stay as a TCN.
|European asylum law
- International law context:
- Geneva Convention: 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
“expressing the wish that all States, recognizing the social and humanitarian nature of the problem of refugees, will do everything within their power to prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States”
The right to asylum: EU Charter
Non-refoulement principle – article 3 and 4 ECHR.
les: you can not someone back, to stay his or her life is in danger. Fundamental right to asylum.
|Main instruments in the European Common Asylum System
- Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Directive 2013/32/EU Procedural safeguards (minimum harmonization)
- Directive 2011/95/EU Qualification Directive (who is refugees and which people fall under the definition)
- Directive 2013/33/EU Reception Conditions Directive
The Dublin System
Dublin Regulation III: Regulation 604/2013
- Criteria to establish the responsible MS
a. Minors
b. Family members
c. issue of residence documents/visa
d. Entry/Stay
“First entry-principle” – Greece, Italy
The Dublin System: problems!
C-411/10: N.S. (CJEU) & M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (ECHR)
- mutual confidence
- “if there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in the Member State responsible, resulting in inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter”
- EU citizenship came from the internal market idea – but it is a non-economic concept, free movement criteria is loosened too (in some cases)
- Specific rights on residence for individuals (Article 20/Article 21 TFEU/Directive 2004/38)
art. 20 internal situation - Nationality and EU citizenship are much intertwined
- Third country nationals have different residency rights in the EU
as a family member you will have to check directive 2004/38 and also other grounds to stay as a TCN.
- EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely in the European Union. Some EU citizens are workers or self-employed, others do not undertake economic activities. Could you explain the differences and the similarities of the rights these two groups have?
right to equal treatment
workers have always rights and social benefits.
If you reside legally you have the right of equal treatment.
For this question, Directive 2004/38 is relevant. According to Article 7 of this Directive, workers and self-employed persons are allowed to stay in the host Member State. Non-economically active persons are allowed to stay in the host Member State for longer than 3 months only if they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members. We can see the distinction in Article 24(2) of this Directive as well, where non-economically active persons do not have the same rights concerning social assistance as workers and self-employed persons.
- EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely in the European Union. Some EU citizens are workers or self-employed, others do not undertake economic activities. Could you explain the differences and the similarities of the rights these two groups have?
- The residence rights of non-EU citizens can also be regulated through EU law. How do the residence rights of EU citizens relate to those of non-EU citizens? On what basis are the residence rights for non-EU citizens founded and what difference does this mean for e.g. their access to work? Can you find specific examples? (N.B. you are required to conduct your own research beyond the course materials).
Residence Rights of Third-Country Nationals (TCNs)
1 TCNs family members of EU citizens – Citizenship law
- derived right of residence under CRD 2004/38 – citizenship law (art. 3 CRD)
- need for a cross-border element of EU citizen + residence in accordance with CRD art. 7
- possibility of reverse discrimination!
2 Other – migration and asylum law
- different treaty legal bases (e.g. art. 3, 67, 78and 79 TFEU)
- but which fields are specifically covered by EU law?
legal migration (like long-term residence)
Asylum
Throughout the derived right (cross-border situation art. 21 TFEU and internal situation art. 20 TFEU)
lawboks:
Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/28 apply primarily to EU citizens. The Directive 2004/38 also applies to non-EU citizens, when they qualify as a third-country national (TCN) family member (see Article 2(2) of the Directive).
Furthermore, other TCN could have a right of residence based on several Directives. Examples are students (Dir. 2016/802), Directive on Seasonal Workers, the Directive on Blue Card, refugees (Dir. 2011/95) or long-term residents (Dir. 2003/86).
- The residence rights of non-EU citizens can also be regulated through EU law. How do the residence rights of EU citizens relate to those of non-EU citizens? On what basis are the residence rights for non-EU citizens founded and what difference does this mean for e.g. their access to work? Can you find specific examples? (N.B. you are required to conduct your own research beyond the course materials).
