Provisions Common to the Right of Residence and the Right of Permanent Residence

2019 ◽  
pp. 229-252
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
The Status ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Right ◽  
Treatment Rules ◽  
The Eu

This chapter addresses Chapter V of the citizens’ Directive, which sets out a number of overarching provisions that apply both to the right of residence and the right of permanent residence. The Articles in Chapter V define the territorial scope of residence rights (Article 22) and confirm the entitlement of family members of EU citizens who move within the EU to engage in economic activity (Article 23). Further provisions elaborate on the application of the principle of equal treatment to migrant Union citizens and their family members (Article 24) and clarify the status of residence documents issued by national authorities (Article 25). Chapter V also regulates the entitlement of Member States to carry out checks on non-nationals (Article 26). Chief among these provisions is the principle of equality, which also overlaps with equal treatment rules in legislation governing the free movement of workers and the Treaty rules on equal treatment in relation to EU citizenship.

scholarly journals Gloss to the Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 129/18, SM versus Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-200
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Woch
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
Legal Guardianship ◽  
The Status ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right of family members of Union citizens to live with them in the host Member State has always been considered essential for an effective freedom of movement of citizens. However, the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC contain a different description of the scope of rights of family members of Union citizens taking advantage of the freedom of movement of persons as to the possibility of accompanying or joining EU citizens taking advantage of the freedom of movement of persons, depending on whether they belong to the circle of ‘closer’ or ‘distant’ family members. This issue acquires particular significance in the context of family members who are not citizens of any Member State of the Union. For individuals belonging to the circle of ‘closer’ family members, the EU legislator grants the subjective right to accompany or join a Union citizen exercising the right of the freedom of movement of persons. In the latter case, the legislator only obliges the host Member States to facilitate entry and residence for such individuals in accordance with their national legislation. The glossed judgment, by determining the status of individuals under legal guardianship within the framework of the Algerian kafala system as a ‘distant’ family member of a Union citizen, clearly touches upon a significant issue in the context of the Union’s freedom of movement of persons.    

22. Free Movement of Workers

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 809-860
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. The free movement of workers is of central importance to the EU, in both economic and social terms. This is reflected in the legislation that fleshes out the basic rights contained in Article 45 and in the European Court of Justice’s consistently purposive interpretation of the Treaty Articles and legislation to achieve the EU’s objectives in this area. This chapter considers several central legal issues that arise in the context of the free movement of workers. These include the scope of Article 45, the meaning accorded to ‘worker’, the rights of intermediate categories such as ‘job-seeker’, the kinds of restrictions that states may justifiably impose on workers and their families; and the rights which family members enjoy under EU law. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues concerning free movement of workers between the EU and the UK post-Brexit.

22. Free Movement of Workers

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 781-831
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. The free movement of workers is of central importance to the EU, in both economic and social terms. This is reflected in the legislation that fleshes out the basic rights contained in Article 45 and in the European Court of Justice’s consistently purposive interpretation of the Treaty Articles and legislation to achieve the EU’s objectives in this area. This chapter considers several central legal issues that arise in the context of the free movement of workers. These include the scope of Article 45, the meaning accorded to ‘worker’, the rights of intermediate categories such as ‘job-seeker’, the kinds of restrictions that states may justifiably impose on workers and their families; and the rights which family members enjoy under EU law. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues concerning free movement of workers between the EU and the UK post-Brexit.

21. Free Movement of Workers

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. The free movement of workers is of central importance to the EU, in both economic and social terms. This is reflected in the legislation that fleshes out the basic rights contained in Article 45 and in the European Court of Justice’s consistently purposive interpretation of the Treaty Articles and legislation to achieve the EU’s objectives in this area. This chapter considers several central legal issues that arise in the context of the free movement of workers. These include the scope of Article 45, the meaning accorded to ‘worker’, the rights of intermediate categories such as ‘job-seeker’, the kinds of restrictions that states may justifiably impose on workers and their families; and the rights which family members enjoy under EU law.

A Blurred Piece of Jigsaw: On the Status of Jobseekers within the Framework of Directive 2004/38

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-596
Author(s):  
Rufat Babayev
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article explores the status of jobseeker in Directive 2004/38 that is aimed to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens. Unlike the categories of economically active and inactive persons, Directive 2004/38 employs a somewhat piecemeal approach towards setting out the status of jobseekers. It is submitted that this leads to much uncertainty over their residence rights and raises the prospect of divergent national implementation measures, leaving much leeway for the adoption of stringent approaches. While this is manifested itself, for instance, in the UK’s policy towards Union jobseekers, it is also particularly salient within the framework of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement that authorises a constitutive approach to post-Brexit residence status, which is shown to carry a greater risk for UK nationals residing in EU Member States. Both instances are argued to further substantiate the need for a more systematic approach towards the outline of the status of jobseeker in Directive 2004/38, though the introduction of any legislative change may not currently be politically viable.

Institutional Models under Directive 2014/54: Advantages and Disadvantages for Free Movement of Workers and their Family Members

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-250
Author(s):  
Lyra Jakulevičienė ◽  
Regina Valutytė ◽  
Inga Daukšienė
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
Institutional Model ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Despite many efforts to empower the EU citizens and their family members to benefit from the free movement of workers, numerous well-documented obstacles are still present within the EU. The EU intends to eliminate the gap between the rights on paper and in practice in Directive 2014/54 by establishing four procedural pillars—promotion, support, analysis and monitoring. The functions are entrusted to the institution(s) designated by the Member States leaving them a wide discretion to choose the most appropriate institutional model. This article focuses on the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of three possible institutional setups—establishment of a new institution, extension of the mandate of an existing body and assignment of the tasks to several existing national bodies. The study examines which model is more suitable to meet the aims of the Directive, taking into consideration the nature and content of the abovementioned pillars and specific situation in the different Member States.

scholarly journals The Labyrinth of Employment and Social Rights in the EU Intra-Corporate Transfer Directive

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252096736
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Migrant Worker ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Temporary Workers ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rome I ◽  
The Eu

Directive 2014/66/EU on Intra-Corporate Transfer regulates the temporary secondment of key personnel and trainees from third countries to the Member States of the EU. It is part of the EU external labour migration policy and aims at facilitating this policy by setting up harmonised conditions for admission, residence and work of these migrants, including the right to move and work in another Member State. This article analyses the role and meaning of the provisions in this Directive relating to the employment and social security rights of intra-corporate transferees. They are the result of cumbersome negotiations and the compromises that were reached are ambiguously and inconsistently formulated. First, this article will highlight the relevance of the worker’s employment position for determining the scope of this Directive. Next, it will analyse the role of employment and social security rights in the implementation of the Directive by the Member States. These rights are relevant as criteria for admission, as grounds for rejection of an application, as grounds for withdrawal or non-renewal of an ICT permit and as conditions for short-term and long-term mobility within the EU. Subsequently, this article will scrutinise, in detail, the provisions of Article 18 of the Directive which guarantee equal treatment with the nationals of the host State in respect of employment and social security rights. Special attention will be paid to the interrelationship of this Directive with other EU legal instruments such as the Posting of Workers Directive, the Rome I Regulation and social security Regulation 883/2004. It concludes that the complicated and contradictorily worded provisions on employment and social security rights in this Directive reflect the ambiguity in the perception of the status of this type of migrant worker coming from a third country: are they to be considered as temporary workers or do they really participate in the labour market of the host Member States?

12. Free movement of persons and services and freedom of establishment

2021 ◽  
pp. 392-452
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons

This chapter examines the free movement of workers, family members and non-active persons and freedom of establishment, and places this within the framework of citizenship of the European Union. The free movement of workers is one of the original four freedoms in the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community. Free movement of workers was essential for the construction of an internal market, and for several decades the freedom to move within the Community maintained its strict link with economic activity. Free movement has now evolved beyond the economically active with access, for example, to social advantages and rights for family members. This chapter also considers the exceptions to free movement (e.g. the public health and public security exceptions) and special cases of free movement (e.g. sport and lawyers).

scholarly journals The Right of Free Movement and the Access To Social Protection in the EU: The Economical Dimension. Notes on the Case Elisabeta Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, C-333/13

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 110-120
Author(s):  
Daniela Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Assistance Systems ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This article seeks to analyse the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in the Dano judgement concerning the free movement of EU citizens and their cross-border access to social benefits. The debate about social tourism or welfare migration has been acrimonious in the last years. The Member States face new challenges concerning the possibility of excluding economically inactive European Union (EU) citizens from other Member States from special non-contributory social benefits. However, if on one hand we have the need to protect the financial sustainability of the Member States, as non-active EU citizens from other Member States can represent a burden on their social assistance systems, on the other hand, we also need to respect one of the EU’s most basilar principles: the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. The CJEU has decided that the economically nonactive citizens of other Member States can only claim equal treatment in regard to access to social benefits, when they have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document