Articles de revues sur le sujet « Nationals of Member States and third States »
Pour voir les autres types de publications sur ce sujet consultez le lien suivant : Nationals of Member States and third States.
Créez une référence correcte selon les styles APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard et plusieurs autres
Consultez les 50 meilleurs articles de revues pour votre recherche sur le sujet « Nationals of Member States and third States ».
À côté de chaque source dans la liste de références il y a un bouton « Ajouter à la bibliographie ». Cliquez sur ce bouton, et nous générerons automatiquement la référence bibliographique pour la source choisie selon votre style de citation préféré : APA, MLA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.
Vous pouvez aussi télécharger le texte intégral de la publication scolaire au format pdf et consulter son résumé en ligne lorsque ces informations sont inclues dans les métadonnées.
Parcourez les articles de revues sur diverses disciplines et organisez correctement votre bibliographie.
1
Guild, Elspeth. « EU Citizens, Foreign Family Members and European Union Law ». European Journal of Migration and Law 21, no 3 (7 août 2019) : 358–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340055.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract While international human rights law enshrines family life as a cornerstone of society, when it intersects with migration, issues and problems arise in countries where migration is high on the political agenda. This is true in a number of EU states. Both EU law and European human rights commitments, however, require states to provide for family reunification subject to a margin of discretion to the state. While family reunification for refugees and beneficiaries of international protection has been at the top of some political agendas in Europe, this article looks at family reunification (generally known as family reunion) for another group—nationals of the Member States. In particular it poses two questions: do EU Member States accept their own nationals to come back to their home state with third country national family members they have acquired while abroad? Secondly, to what extent do EU Member States discriminate against their own nationals in comparison with the generous EU rules of family reunion for nationals of other Member States who have exercised a free movement right in their country. This article is based on reports by experts from all EU Member States in light of the 2014 judgment in O & B (C-456/12) by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
2
Føllesdal, Andreas. « Third Country Nationals as European Citizens : The Case Defended ». Sociological Review 48, no 1_suppl (mai 2000) : 104–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2000.tb03508.x.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The Amsterdam Treaty bolsters Union citizenship in order to bring the European Union closer to the citizens of Europe.1 Inadvertently, this strategy gives citizens of non-EU states an inferior status in the European Union, even though they may be semi-permanent residents in a Member State. Union citizenship increases the social and political exclusion of third country nationals, in violation of the basic democratic principle that those affected by social institutions should also enjoy political levers of influence. This chapter first briefly sketches a Liberal Contractualist defence for awarding this group full citizenship in the relevant Member State, arguing in particular for three somewhat contested issues: that third country nationals should not only enjoy Union citizenship, but also be given national citizenship in the Member State of residence; that Member States may impose conditions, oaths etc. on such prospective citizens; and that Member States may withhold some privileges from those resident third country nationals who refuse to be naturalised. The chapter goes on to present and discuss, only to dismiss, the most plausible arguments offered in defence of current practice within the context of a Europe of open borders for Member State citizens. These arguments seek to deny citizenship to third country nationals in order to: protect national and locally endorsed values ensuring social homogeneity of the community; exclude people with non-liberal values; ensure commitment to a shared future which warrants democratic rights in the first place; avoid instability caused by citizens with conflicting multiple loyalties; ensure and foster the ideal of active political participation, impossible for dual citizens; and avoid backlash problems among current EU citizens which threaten the stability of welfare policies of member States and the EU.
3
Voloshyn, Yuriy, et Nataliia Mushak. « ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION AND EXPULSION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION’S MEMBER STATES ». Administrative law and process, no 4 (31) (2020) : 5–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2020.4.01.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The purpose of the article is to highlight key issues related to the deportation and eviction ofthird-country nationals from the Member States of the European Union.The article covers the key issues related to the deportation and expulsion of third-country nationalsfrom the European Union’s member states. The research determines that within the European Union most of the issues related to the deportation and expulsion of third-country nationals fromthe EU territory and EU member states are classified as a common immigration policy.The study used a set of methods that defined its purpose and objectives. The authors used acomplex of general scientific and special scientific methods. The dialectical method of cognitionwas used in the analysis of legal relations that are developed within the EU and are in conditionsof continuous development and improvement. The historical and legal method provided anopportunity to investigate the practice of deportation by states at different stages of EU lawdevelopment. The comparative and legal method was used in comparison with the conditions ofdeportation in different European countries.The results of the article are determined by key provisions regulating the issue of deportationand eviction, which serve as legal measures in the fight against the EU and its member states withillegal migration.It has been established that deportation and expulsion serve as legal measures in the fight againstthe EU and its member states with illegal migration. It is emphasized that among the effectivemeans of combating illegal immigrants is the adoption by both the European Union and its MemberStates of the readmission agreements with third countries, which provide for the procedure ofsimplifying the return of persons who do not have legal grounds for staying in the territory of anEU member state, to the country of origin or transit, as well as solving problems related to thereturn procedure, formalizing the effective process of returning persons and preventing problemsin this in the field.The conclusions highlight that in most European countries, the issues of deportation and expulsionare regulated solely on the basis of national legislation, taking into account the standards andnorms of EU law. A number of documents that determine a safe third country have been analyzed.A safe third country is a country that guarantees the right of third-country nationals to apply forasylum.The research analyses the legal instruments of the European Union, which guarantee the right toasylum and provides for compliance with the principle of non-adoption. It is stated that no onecan be expelled or extradited to a state in which there is a serious danger that such a person maybe given a death penalty.There are legal grounds for non-resettlement, and individuals cannot be tortured or punished.
4
Hardy, Julien. « The Objective of Directive 2003/86 Is to Promote the Family Reunification of Third Country Nationals ». European Journal of Migration and Law 14, no 4 (2012) : 439–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12342017.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract This paper provides an analysis of the objective attributed by the CJEU to Directive 2003/86 in the Chakroun (C-578/08) decision and its impact on Member States’ margins of manoeuvre. The Court indeed stated that ‘(. . .) the margin for manoeuvre which the Member States are recognised as having must not be used by them in a manner which would undermine the objective of the directive, which is to promote family reunification, and the effectiveness thereof’.1 Astonishingly enough, this part of the judgement has not stirred much reaction from commentators and Member States. After an analysis of the meaning of ‘promoting’, and of the rationale and value of the CJEU’s position, I will expose the impact that it might have on the margins of manoeuvre of Member States while implementing the directive. All this should help to grasp the Court’s statement, and as a matter of consequence, to gauge the compliance of national legislations and practices.
5
Csatlós, Erzsébet. « Consular cooperation in third states : Some aspects concerning europanisation of foreign service for EU citizens ». Bratislava Law Review 1, no 1 (1 octobre 2017) : 71–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.46282/blr.2017.1.1.57.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The EU does not aim to harmonize the public administration of Member States, although, in recent years, there have been several examples which prove that EU legislation in whatever policy inevitably and unavoidably results in some standardization. In 2015 the EU replaced its former decision with a directive to enhance Member States to co-ordinate consular assistance in third States. Every EU citizen has the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third State 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. This provision of Article 23 of TFEU not solely requires the cooperation of administrative authorities of foreign service but implicitly means a kind of harmonization of substantive law, leads to organizational changes and affects administrative procedural rules of Member States.
6
Mushak, N. « LEGAL PROTECTION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ». ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1, no 127 (2016) : 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2016.127.1.95-103.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The article is devoted to the legal analysis of the EU common policy in order to provide protection to third country nationals. To control the issues caused by a significant increase of the number of asylum seekers and refugees into the territory of the EU Member States the European Union is developing a common policy on asylum and protection of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the EU Member States. The EU common policy in this area is the European Union coordination policy to establish common rules for asylum for third-country nationals; establish common rules to provide the additional security for third-country nationals who without obtaining the European asylum in whole, however, need the international protection; to create a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons in regard of their substantial influx; to determine common procedures for granting and withdrawing of a single asylum status or additional protection. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the asylum procedure of third-country nationals. As well as issues related to the protection of external borders, visa and immigration policies TFEU predicts a joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council decision under the ordinary legislative procedure, id est voting for proposal of the EU Commission. Simultaneously, under the TFEU, if within one or more EU Member States there is an emergency situation characterized by a sudden influx of third-country nationals, the EU Council for the EU Commission proposal and acting after the consultations with the European Parliament may adopt temporary measures in favor of the interesting Member States. Nowadays the European Union is in dynamic and permanent development process of a common policy to provide protection to third-country nationals. This policy is implemented through the use of the EU method of coordination in matters relating to the establishment of the common status of asylum for third-country nationals; determining the status of a common additional protection for third-country nationals; the introduction of a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons; establishing of common procedures for granting and withdrawing of a common asylum status or additional protection.
7
Goldner Lang, Iris. « The European Union and Migration : An Interplay of National, Regional, and International Law ». AJIL Unbound 111 (2017) : 509–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.4.
Texte intégralRésumé :
If global migration law “includes all levels of the law,” then the European Union represents the most developed instance of the interplay of national, regional, and international law. Migration law in the European Union involves the interaction of EU Member States’ national laws, EU regional law, and international law. This complex interchange of different migratory legal regimes is the consequence of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, objectives and interests of the Union and its Member States, and the nature of EU law itself. This essay explores the impact of these three levels of the law on the four migratory regulatory categories—EU citizens, “desirable” third-country nationals, asylum seekers, and all other third-country nationals—and the three objectives associated with these categories. The predominance of one legal regime over another varies depending on the regulatory category of migrants and the objectives associated therewith. While describing the existing legal systems, the essay outlines their attributes and shortcomings, the most prominent being: a clear rift between the rights granted to EU citizens and to third-country nationals; EU Member States’ determination to reserve to their respective national territories a high level of national control over labor migration; and significant deficiencies of the EU asylum law which were brought to the surface by the recent refugee influx into the EU.
8
Nikolajova Kupferschmidtová, Elena. « Language assitance as a procedural safeguard increasing the legal security in relation to migration ». Naukovyy Visnyk Dnipropetrovs'kogo Derzhavnogo Universytetu Vnutrishnikh Sprav 1, no 1 (29 mars 2021) : 34–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.31733/2078-3566-2021-1-34-41.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The focus of the present paper lies on the attempt to map the current situation in the field of language/linguistic assistance provided to the third-country nationals detained in the detention facilities of the EU Member States. The author, particularly, stresses out the difficulties in ensuring the professional translation and interpreting services especially in cases of less-spread and indigenous languages that are in most cases mother tongues of the detained nationals. Thus, EU Member States face a formidable task as the obligation to ensure the procedural safeguards listed in the European Convention on Human Rights are guaranteed, and the fundamental rights are protected, and the language assistance is definitely one of them. Respect and protection of fundamental human rights contributes to the elementary sense of safety in all Meber States nationals living in the territory of the EU, even in the third-country nationals arriving into the EU. The present paper is the output of the project of the Academy of the Police Force in Bratislava: Intercultural Communication with the Third-Country Nationals in Detention Facilities (No. 241)
9
Beduschi, Ana. « An Empty Shell ? The Protection of Social Rights of Third-Country Workers in the eu after the Single Permit Directive ». European Journal of Migration and Law 17, no 2-3 (24 juin 2015) : 210–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12342078.
Texte intégralRésumé :
This article critically assesses the effectiveness of third-country nationals’ social rights protection in the eu following the adoption of Directive 2011/98/eu (‘the Single Permit Directive’). This instrument establishes a single permit for work and residence and sets up a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. This article argues that despite being an important instrument allowing for a better protection of social rights of third-country nationals, the directive still reveals significant inconsistencies. First, due to difficult negotiations at the Council, the final text of the directive maintains the fragmented approach to legal immigration, excluding several categories of third-country nationals from its personal scope. Second, it also allows Member States the opportunity to impose important restrictions on social rights while implementing the directive. Finally, these restrictions can have considerable implications for the integration of immigrants in the host Member State. Accordingly, the argument is advanced that in reality the protection of third-country workers’ social rights in the eu still largely depends on the Member States’ political will.
10
Moçka, Ervis. « The Importance and Application of the Principle of Equal Treatment of Third Country Nationals in the EU ». European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research 1, no 1 (1 mai 2014) : 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v1i1.p174-178.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The communitarization of immigration and asylum disciplines and the beginning of a common European Union policy in such areas will begin to create more favorable conditions for the integration of third country nationals who are legally resident, in the territory of the EU. The Tampere European Council of 1999 stressed the need to provide to nationals of third countries rights and obligations similar to those of EU nationals, in order to eliminate social, economic and cultural discrimination. This could be possible through the approximation of the legal status of third country nationals to that of EU nationals. To achieve this goal, there are adopted secondary norms of Community legislation on equal treatment for certain categories of citizens of third countries as refugees, the long-term residents, etc. Regulation EC No 859/2003 extended the effects of the provisions relating to the coordination of national social security regimes and to third country nationals. This European common policy took a new development with the Lisbon Treaty. One of the objectives of the common policy on immigration is the one which provides an equo treatment to third-country national who are legally resident in one of the Member States. This attitude finds concretization even to several articles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which after the Lisbon Treaty has binding legal effects as it has the same legal value of the treaties. The Directive 2011/98/EU aims to establish a single procedure for third country nationals to obtain a combined permit for both residence and work, establishing a series of rights for third-country nationals who are legally resident in a Member State. This directive, in certain sectors, provides an equal treatment of third country nationals with those national. But the text of the directive provides also the cases when EU Member States may derogate from the application of the principle of equal treatment. This paper aims to analyze legal instruments adopted by the EU which recognize the principle of equal treatment of nationals of third countries with nationals, as well as the ways provided to implement this important principle.
11
Amerasinghe, C. F. « Liability to Third Parties of Member States of International Organizations : Practice, Principle and Judicial Precedent ». American Journal of International Law 85, no 2 (avril 1991) : 259–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203062.
Texte intégralRésumé :
One of the principal issues of interest to international lawyers in the International Tin Council cases decided by the English courts was whether member states of the International Tin Council (ITC) were secondarily or concurrently liable to third parties for the debts of the organization. This issue may arise when two or more states form an organization with legal personality that can perform functions with legal consequences. In the course of performing these functions, such an organization may incur liabilities to third parties. These third parties may be states, other organizations, individuals or legal persons. The states may be member states of the organization itself or other states, and the individuals and legal persons may be nationals of member states or not. The liabilities may emanate from transactions, such as international agreements between states and the organization, that take place at the international level and may be governed by international law; or they may stem from transactions governed by municipal law, whether between the organization and states, individuals or legal persons. Such liabilities may be contractual, quasi-contractual or delictual.
12
Berneri, Chiara. « Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi v. Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland ». European Public Law 21, Issue 3 (1 août 2015) : 457–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/euro2015025.
Texte intégralRésumé :
One of the key innovations of Directive 2004/38 EC is the introduction of Article 16 on the right of permanent residence in the host EU Member States of EU citizens and their third-country national family members. For the first time EU citizens and their third-country national family members, regardless of whether they are engaged in employment, are eligible to the right of permanent residence after having resided in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years. The acquisition of the right of permanent residence grants EU citizens and their family members’ enhanced protection against expulsion. In addition, those who have such a right shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State also in terms of social benefits and tax credits. The advantages deriving from this provision led many EU citizens and third-country nationals to try rely on it in different circumstances. For this reason, often, national courts have found it necessary to stay proceedings and refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to seek clarifications regarding its application. This occurred also in Case C-244/13, Ogieriakhi v. Minister for Justice and Equality.
13
Burgstaller, Markus. « European Law and Investment Treaties ». Journal of International Arbitration 26, Issue 2 (1 avril 2009) : 181–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/joia2009010.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The interrelation between European law and investment treaties is becoming ever more important. Recently,international arbitral tribunals had to consider questions such as the validity of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded or in force between EU Member States and the applicability of EC law in investment disputes. An Advocate General (AG) at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) opined that some of Austria’s and Sweden’s BITs would violate EC law. In the course of the most recent enlargement processes of the EU, the Commission demanded adjustments to BITs of the now new Member States. In addition, the Commission’s Minimum Platform on Investment (MPoI) encroaches upon Member States’ competence to conclude and amend their BITs. Both the Communities and the Member States are parties to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Under this treaty, third state nationals may bring claims against both the Communities and the Member States, but whereas EU nationals are barred from bringing claims against the Communities, they may still bring claims against other Member States. While the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon is still unclear, its entry into force would have fundamental consequences for international investment law.
14
Böcker, Anita, et Tineke Strik*. « Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights : Help or Hindrance for Integration ? » European Journal of Migration and Law 13, no 2 (2011) : 157–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181611x571268.
Texte intégralRésumé :
AbstractMore and more Member States require immigrants from outside the EU to pass language or knowledge-of-society tests in different stages of the immigration and integration process. This article focuses on the application of this requirement as a condition for obtaining a permanent residence permit or the EU long-term resident status. It is based on an international comparative study that included seven Member States with integration conditions (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The article analyses the reasons behind the introduction of language and knowledge tests for applicants for a permanent residence permit or the EU long-term resident status in these Member States. Secondly, it examines the effects of the tests on the integration process of third-country nationals admitted for non-temporary stay. Finally, it discusses the legal constraints posed by EU and international law.
15
Gümüs, Yasin Kerem. « EU Blue Card Scheme : The Right Step in the Right Direction ? » European Journal of Migration and Law 12, no 4 (2010) : 435–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181610x535773.
Texte intégralRésumé :
AbstractIn October 2007, the European Commission adopted a controversial proposal on the conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals for highly qualified employment. The Blue Card scheme is intended to provide Member States and European Union (EU) companies with additional “tools” to recruit, retain and better allocate the workers they require, and so to increase the competitiveness of the EU economy through legal immigration and provide the EU with an advantage to compete with the US Green Card. However, the EU Blue Card scheme has been the subject of much controversy among not only EU Member States but also among less developed countries. This article aims to analyze the Blue Card scheme, which was adopted on 25 May 2009 and gives Member States two years to incorporate the new provisions into their domestic legislation. After providing an overview of the scheme, the second part deals with critics of the scheme and national responses of Member States to the scheme. Finally, the third part of the article seeks to answer the question: is the Blue Card scheme the right step in the right direction?
16
Baldaccini, Anneliese. « The Return and Removal of Irregular Migrants under EU Law : An Analysis of the Returns Directive ». European Journal of Migration and Law 11, no 1 (20 mars 2009) : 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181609x410566.
Texte intégralRésumé :
After protracted negotiations, in June 2008, agreement between the European Parliament and the Council cleared the way for the adoption of the Directive setting out common standards and procedures in the Member States for returning irregularly staying third country nationals (the Returns Directive). While its impact in terms of harmonising national legal frameworks can be questioned, from the Member States’ point of view the agreed standards will underpin their common efforts at removing a higher number of irregular immigrants. From the point of view of immigrants, it will mean longer pre-removal detention periods and a ban on re-entering legally the Union’s territory for the foreseeable future.
17
Bischoff, Jan Asmus. « Just a little bit of mixity ? The EUs role in the field of international investment protection law ». Common Market Law Review 48, Issue 5 (1 octobre 2011) : 1527–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2011060.
Texte intégralRésumé :
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) has been extended to foreign direct investment (FDI). However, the scope of these (exclusive) competences under the CCP is limited and thus does not pertain to all issues governed by contemporary bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Rather, the competences for such BITs are mixed. Therefore, future agreements will have to be concluded by the EU and the its Member States together unless the EU is prepared to exclude the protection of certain investments from its agenda. But mixed agreements on investment protection cause complications concerning their conclusion and implementation. Until a satisfying EU investment regime is set up, investments by nationals of the EU Member States will have to be protected by the Member States' BITs. The Member States of the EU have concluded a large number of bilateral and also multilateral investment agreements governing the protection of investments made. Nevertheless, the existing Member States' BITs are affected by the transfer of exclusive competences for FDI to the EU. Generally, the Member States will have to terminate these agreements. To avoid such severe consequences, the European Commission proposed a Regulation establishing a transitional regime that allows the Member States to maintain their existing BITs concluded with third countries or even to conclude new BITs. Such a transitional regime is essential for the protection of investments by EU nationals. However, the Regulation Proposal adopted by the Commission is badly drafted and can only be considered a first step towards such an instrument.
18
Montaldo, Stefano. « Integration examinations for regular migrants : the difficult search for a balance between national competencies and full effectiveness of EU law ». UNIO – EU Law Journal 2 (1 juin 2016) : 39–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.21814/unio.2.4.
Texte intégralRésumé :
According to Article 79(4) TFEU, integration policies fall under the competence of the Member States, while the EU plays a complementary role. However, the EU has been exercising an increasing influence in this domain: on the one hand, the Commission launched a series of policy initiatives, under the common umbrella of a European Integration Agenda, aiming at coordinating national efforts and best practices; on the other hand, integration clauses were included in some secondary acts concerning regular migration. In this context, Directive 2003/109/EC on long-term residents and Directive 2003/86/EC on family reunification allow Member States to require third country nationals to comply with integration conditions or measures, which often take the shape of basic integration exams. In particular, the enjoyment of the rights conferred by these Directives is often made conditional upon the fulfillment of the integration requirements. The Court of Justice of the European Union (henceforth, CJEU) has recently confirmed these examinations to be compatible with EU law; however, the organization and the contents of these examinations must pass a strict proportionality test. In fact, they must not result in tools to select migrants, rather to favour the integration of third country nationals regularly settled in the hosting States.
19
Wojcik, Jan. « Sovereignty of Member States in New European Pact for Migration and Asylum ». Review of Nationalities 10, no 1 (1 décembre 2020) : 245–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/pn-2020-0017.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract The author of the article attempts to analyze the consequences for Member States’ sovereignty arising from the European asylum system reform and harmonization proposed in September 2020 by the European Commission. The author believes that so-called solidarity mechanism, however designed with intention of burden sharing and help, de facto has the potential to become migrant relocation mechanism. That argument is already being raised by Member States that are opposing the European Commission’s proposal. According to them, the proposal violates rules guaranteeing Member States’ rights to determine volumes of admissions of the third country nationals, explicitly expressed in the Treaty on the European Union. The author also notices that decision-making power on the relocations is transferred to the Commission, leaving limited flexibility in gesture of Member States. Without being opposed to subsidiarity principle itself, the article questions whether the details of the Commission’s proposal are not actually against the principle and certain elements, like effective return, are not better achieved at the national level. In the research procedure, a method of critical analysis of the content of studies and the available sources was used.
20
Odorige, Catherine. « The Shoppers ; Venue Shopping, Asylum Shopping : A Resolution in EURODAC ? » Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 331 (12 juillet 2018) : 229–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.24989/ocg.v331.19.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The term shopping used in reference to two strictly legal/politically somewhat related issues ‘Asylum shopping’ and ‘Venue shopping’, belong to two different spheres of actors. Asylum shopping is descriptive of the action of asylum seekers selectivity, in choice of member state where they perceive better social and welfare conditions. Venue shopping, a concept introduced by Guiraudon in 2000, explain the action of movement by member states in the European Union from venues of national jurisdiction, less amenable to their search for more restrictive migration policy to venues howbeit transnational like transit countries and EU institutions suitable for their policy perspectives. This they did for the primary purpose of avoiding adversary activities of non-state actors and the judicial scrutiny within their national sphere. Common European Asylum System (CEAS) the Dublin Directive and the EURODAC are spill-over in the European integration Project, commonly referred to as the Schengen acquis in the area of migration and integration of third country nationals. The three directives are the results of policy search to administer the entrance and residence of third country nationals especially in the area of irregular migration.
This paper seeks to examine the inter-relationship between the two actors to which the commercial term shopping describes, how an electronic regulation in EURODAC became a check to their ‘shopping.’ For the asylum seekers exposing their agency, for the member states reducing anxieties, and influenced the ceding of powers hitherto held by member states through (intergovernmental) negotiations to the EU (Supranational) and the impact of these policy measures in checking security challenges and sanitization of this angle of asylum administration in the EU.
21
Chlebny, Jacek. « Public Order, National Security and the Rights of Third-Country Nationals in Immigration Cases ». European Journal of Migration and Law 20, no 2 (30 mai 2018) : 115–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340023.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract The objective of the article is to highlight the impact of the public order and national security concerns on immigration cases in the Member States. The most common categories of the administrative acts that are relevant to the topic are visa decisions, refusal of entry, entry bans, all types of decisions on granting a residence permit (permanent or temporary) and return decisions. The first part of the article is devoted to the institutional capacity in the field of immigration cases. The second part deals with the substantive law challenges and the third part focuses on the procedural law challenges, in particular access to classified evidence in immigration cases.
22
Baldaccini, Anneliese. « Counter-Terrorism and the EU Strategy for Border Security : Framing Suspects with Biometric Documents and Databases ». European Journal of Migration and Law 10, no 1 (2008) : 31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/138836407x261308.
Texte intégralRésumé :
AbstractThis article examines the way in which the EU amd its Member States have approached border security issues since the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001. A key aspect of this approach has been to tighten control of borders and the safety of documents by the use of biometric systems. The new policies on border security and document security are resulting in the mass collection and storage of biometric data in relation to third-country nationals seeking entry into the territory of EU Member States, and in relation to EU nationals within the context of travel and identity documents. These developments are significant as the Union is considering the potential offered by biometrics not only for the effective management of borders but also for the prevention and combating of crime.
23
Evans, Andrew. « European Union Decision-Making, Third States and Comitology ». International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47, no 2 (avril 1998) : 257–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589300061856.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Historically and conceptually, EU law originates in the idea that member States have approved restrictions of national sovereignty in the interests of establishing a common market. In accordance with this idea, significant elaboration or extension of these restrictions must also be approved by the member States or at least by a majority of their representatives in the Council of the Union. The implication is not only that the development of the rules of the common market is dependent on the will of the member States. The further implication is that the rules of the common market and the rules of Union decision-making are separable, in the sense that the latter rules are not affected by the former rules. While such implications are ill-adapted to the pluralist tendencies of integration processes, particularly the participation of third States (that is, non-member States) in these processes, they are confirmed by the formal structure of the EC Treaty.
24
Sokurenko, V. A., et N. O. Khryakova. « EU migration policy : modern paradigms ». Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series : Law, no 63 (9 août 2021) : 239–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.63.42.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The issue of migration policy of the European Union in the modern world is a researched and discussed phenomenon in scientific circles, as the European Union positions itself as a democratic entity with a liberal orientation, which enshrines and protects the right of every person to freedom of movement, so management aims to ensure this value.
The originality of the article is seen in identifying the key stages of formation and development of migration policy of the European Union, the main risks of today, highlighting the need to reform the existing mechanism, proposals for key vectors of development. The article suggests possible ways to minimize existing risks and threats.
To investigate this issue analyzed Directive 2011/98 / EC on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, Directive 2004/38 / EC of 29 April 2004, Council Directive 2003/109 / EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, other international legal instruments on this subject, scientific development, as well as online information resources.
The authors of the article made the following conclusions: 1. The migration policy of the European Union needs special attention; 2. Despite the long history of normative and institutional support of migration policy, today there are gaps that provoke negative consequences, which requires immediate reform of migration policy; 3. Formed ways of development: 1) creation of a single asylum system at the EU level; 2) strengthening assistance to those Member States that suffer the most from the effects of migration processes; 3) ensuring the strengthening of the protection of the EU's external border and the fight against criminal organizations that smuggle migrants to EU Member States.
25
Semyonov, Alexandr, Elena Bogdan, Elena Shamal, Aelita Sargsyan, Karapet Davtyan, Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat et David Novillo-Ortiz. « Digital Health Information Systems in the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States : Status and Prospects ». Digital 3, no 3 (14 juillet 2023) : 189–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/digital3030013.
Texte intégralRésumé :
This paper examines the status of the development of national digital health information systems (HIS) in Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) member states. Data for research were collected using a questionnaire adapted from the questionnaire of the WHO’s Third Global Survey on eHealth. The results showed that the digital transformation of HIS was occurring in all seven CIS member states (participating in the study), which were financed by different resources. Laws and regulations on electronic medical records (EMR) use were present in almost all participating CIS member states. Various international standards and classifications were used to support development and the interoperability of digital health information system (d-HIS), including International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), ISO 18308, Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC), Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), and ISO TC 215. Several CIS member states had adopted a national information security strategy for the safe processing of both personal data and medical confidential information. The digital transformation of healthcare and the Empowerment through Digital Health initiative are taking place in all CIS member states, which are at different stages of introducing electronic medical and health records.
26
Burgstaller, Markus. « Investor-State Arbitration in EU International Investment Agreements with Third States ». Legal Issues of Economic Integration 39, Issue 2 (1 mai 2012) : 207–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/leie2012013.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Both the European Commission and the European Parliament are committed to include investor-state arbitration clauses in EU international investment agreements (IIAs) with third states. However, the EU is not and is unlikely to become a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). While this deficiency may be remedied to some extent by replicating the relevant provisions of the ICSID Convention, EU investors still cannot benefit from the institutional clout of ICSID, which could possibly facilitate enforcement of awards. The main obstacle to investor-state arbitration in EU IIAs with third states, however, is unlikely to stem from the non-availability of the ICSID Convention, but rather from the jurisprudence of the CJEU. The EU could only include investor-state arbitration clauses in EU IIAs with third states following a change in EU primary law such that investment tribunals could be deemed 'courts or tribunals of a Member State' within the meaning of Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
27
Zoeteweij-Turhan, Margarite Helena. « The Seasonal Workers Directive ». European Labour Law Journal 8, no 1 (mars 2017) : 28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2031952517699104.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The Seasonal Workers Directive, harmonising Member States’ laws regarding the entry, residence and certain labour rights of seasonal workers, entered into force in 2014 and should be implemented by Member States (except for the UK, Ireland and Denmark) by 30 September 2016. According to Article 23 of the Directive, in principle, third-country nationals coming to a Member State as seasonal workers are entitled to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State. However, what does ‘equal treatment’ mean when there are almost no nationals doing seasonal work for comparison? Also, the Directive allows Member States to diverge from the principle with regard to family and unemployment benefits and education and vocational training. Furthermore, the Directive does not provide for family reunification, even though seasonal workers are allowed to work for periods of up to nine months per year in the host Member State. Considering the limitations to the principle of equal treatment, and the broad measure of discretion given to the Member States in the implementation of the Directive, can the Directive really improve the precarious position of seasonal workers? What is to be expected of the effectiveness of the Directive? Could the Directive also be attractive for application by countries (inside the EU or outside) that are not bound by the Directive? This article will try to answer these questions by critically analysing the Directive, setting it in historical perspective and comparing it other EU legal instruments on labour migration, focusing particularly on the content of a select number of rights. The article furthermore discusses the issue of gender equality in the (effects of the) EU regulation of labour migration. It finally also addresses the question of the attractiveness of the Directive for adoption by States that are not bound by it, in particular Switzerland, where the seasonal worker has remained a hot topic after officially having ‘disappeared’ from the radar in 2002.
28
Curtin, Deirdre, et Mark Geurts. « Race Discrimination and the European Union Anno 1996 : From Rhetoric to Legal Remedy ? » Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 14, no 2 (juin 1996) : 147–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/092405199601400203.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The question of the legal competence of the EU to adopt binding measures to assist in combatting racial discrimination has traditionally not received much attention. The Treaty on European Union does not include a general prohibition of discrimination but only of (pay related) sex discrimination. Moreover, the Treaty provision outlawing discrimination on grounds of nationality has generally been interpreted as limited to discrimination between nationals of the Member States. For the rest, if anything, the Treaty provisions actually reinforce unequal treatment between the legal situation of migrants with the nationality of a Member State and ‘third country nationals’ (in particular the free movement of persons provisions and the definition of European Union citizenship, as introduced by the Maastricht Treaty). This not only risks feeding xenophobia, it is also an unacceptable starting-point to combat the disgraceful manifestations of racism in the territory of the Member States of the European Union. It is significant that in the run up to the Inter-Governmental Conference to amend the terms of the Treaty, a widely made proposal is to include a prohibition on discrimination on grounds inter alia of race and ethnic origin. A tandem proposal is to provide equal treatment for established third country nationals in certain respects. This article examines both the current situation (possible judicial and legislative approaches) as well as the desirable Treaty amendments.
29
Slepak, V. Yu. « Legal Foundations for Exporting Dual-Use Goods from the European Union ». Lex Russica, no 1 (19 janvier 2021) : 44–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.170.1.044-056.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The paper is devoted to the examination of the main aspects of the legal regulation of exporting dual-use goods in the EU under Council Regulation (EU) No. 428/2009 of 5 May 2009. The main objective of the instrument under consideration is to establish a system common for EU Member States to control effectively the export of dual-use goods in order to ensure compliance of EU member States with international obligations, especially with regard to the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The author concludes that the current Regulation on export of dual-use goods is a logical extension and continuation of the EU instruments regulating arms trade with the third countries that pursues the same objectives, i.e. to implement the international legal obligations of the EU Member States assumed under multilateral control and non-proliferation regimes. Under the selected regulatory model, the EU failed to take the opportunity of replacing relevant national regulation; the Dual-Use Export Regulation defines a general framework, leaving it to Member States to take certain measures aimed at promoting an EU-wide approach. It is up to Member States to establish an appropriate control system for transactions, involving dual-use products, carried out by their nationals and legal entities. On the one hand, it allows the authorities of Member States, due to their proximity to economic entities, to take into account to a greater extent the characteristics of the national market. On the other hand, such a system leads to discrepancies in the practice of applying, in theory at least, uniform measures for the whole Union. Thus, even with the legal basis for independent and exclusive regulation of the export of dual-use products, the EU has faced with the unwillingness of Member States to adopt such restrictions and had to focus on coordinating the activities of Member States, leaving them with a considerable degree of independence and autonomy.
30
Kozak-Balaniuk, Iryna, et Wojciech Szczepan Staszewski. « Temporary Protection for Third-Country Nationals who Arrive to Poland from Territory of Ukraine as a Result of Russian Military Aggression ». Teka Komisji Prawniczej PAN Oddział w Lublinie 16, no 2 (29 décembre 2023) : 181–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.32084/tkp.6809.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The onset of the new phase of Russian aggression against Ukraine, that started on 24 February 2022, has resulted in massive influx of third-country nationals to EU member states, with Poland seeing the greatest impact. This unprecedented wave of migration triggered the first-ever use of the EU’s temporary protection mechanism in recent history. Although the decision of the Council of the European Union has established categories of third-country nationals who qualified for temporary protection, the practice of Polish migration authorities demonstrate that there are still individuals who have fled from Ukrainian territory and require legal protection, yet are not qualified for temporary protection. These groups of third-country nationals must pursue other forms of protection, typically without success in obtaining it.
31
Narożniak, Agnieszka. « Francesca Strumia, European Citizenship and EU Immigration : A Demoi-cratic bridge between the Third Country Nationals’ Right to Belong and the Member States’ Power to Exclude (Obywatelstwo europejskie i imigracja do UE : demoikratyczny most pomiędzy prawem obywateli państw trzecich do przynależności i prawem państw członkowskich do wyłączania), „European Law Journal” 2016, vol. 22, iss. 4 (opr. Agnieszka Narożniak) ». Studia Prawa Publicznego, no 4(20) (4 décembre 2019) : 234–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/spp.2017.4.20.12.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Francesca Strumia, European Citizenship and EU Immigration: A Demoi-cratic bridge between the Third Country Nationals’ Right to Belong and the Member States’ Power to Exclude (Obywatelstwo europejskie i imigracja do UE: demoikratyczny most pomiędzy prawem obywateli państw trzecich do przynależności i prawem państw członkowskich do wyłączania), „European Law Journal” 2016, vol. 22, iss. 4 (opr. Agnieszka Narożniak)
32
Zhuravel, Valeriy O., Olena V. Karpushova, Volodymyr D. Bielousov, Hanna Platonova et Olha A. Dyachenko. « Social Security of Migrant Workers from Ukraine in EU Member States ». BESTUUR 11, no 2 (27 décembre 2023) : 333. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v11i2.78777.
Texte intégralRésumé :
<div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><p class="AbstractText">Labor migration is becoming a growing trend in the modern labor market. It has positive aspects, such as the redistribution of labor and the increase in human capital efficiency. However, along with other elements of a flexible labor market, labor migration can also threaten workers' social protection. The study of social security issues helps to assess the extent to which these workers have access to the necessary social services and benefits, which contribute to their well-being and encourage further contribution to the economy. The primary research method is system analysis, which considers social security as a complex system that includes various components, interrelationships, and influences. The research results found that EU legal acts are equality-oriented and give EU member states the opportunity to set their own rules for migrants coming from third countries. As the economic and social situation in different EU countries differs, member states are trying to preserve the shared values and principles of the Union while protecting their markets from additional social obligations related to the employment of third-country nationals. The priorities of Ukraine's migration policy are to protect citizens' rights and interests abroad and coordinate social security systems with recipient countries of Ukrainian labor migrants.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
33
Pötzschke, Steffen. « Migrant mobilities in Europe : Comparing Turkish to Romanian migrants ». Migration Letters 12, no 3 (27 septembre 2015) : 315–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.33182/ml.v12i3.282.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Besides huge differences in attitudes towards the European Union (EU), it seems to be common sense in nearly all strata of EU member states’ societies that the EU created a common and seemingly borderless space of mobility for its inhabitants. Sometimes this characteristic is not only the first positive thing that comes to people’s mind when asked about the Union but also the only one. This paper investigates to which extend Turkish migrants as third-country citizens residing in EU member states make use of this mobility space in a physical and non-physical manner. Data on Romanian migrants is used to contrast these findings. The analysis builds on recent survey data on transnational activities of migrants and nationals in six EU member states (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain and United Kingdom) collected by the EUCROSS study. It is found that a considerable part of the interviewed Turkish migrants visited other EU member states recently, but that, nevertheless, intra-EU mobility is less common in their case than for migrants from Romania. However, this difference can neither exclusively nor mainly be explained by the absence of European citizenship or by the residence within or outside the Schengen space.
34
Costa, Miguel João. « The emerging EU extradition Law. Petruhhin and beyond ». New Journal of European Criminal Law 8, no 2 (juin 2017) : 192–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2032284417711576.
Texte intégralRésumé :
In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Member States which apply a nationality exception in their extradition relations with third States are bound, under certain circumstances, to accord equal protection to EU citizens other than their own nationals. This article evaluates the nature, scope, impact and meaning of this ruling, and looks into two other extradition cases that are currently awaiting preliminary rulings. The analysis conducted leads the author to claim that these constitute ground-breaking developments which qualify as the advent of a new area within EU criminal law.
35
Polivanova, O. M. « Rules and policies adopted at national level in EU member states relevant to the intraEU mobility of third-country nationals ». Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин, Вип. 120, (ч. 2) (2014) : 72–89.
Trouver le texte intégral
36
Самоховец, М. П., et Е. А. Гречишкина. « ЄВРАЗІЙСЬКИЙ ЕКОНОМІЧНИЙ СОЮЗ : РОЗВИТОК ЗОВНІШНЬОЇ ТОРГІВЛІ ДЕРЖАВ-ЧЛЕНІВ З ТРЕТІМИ КРАЇНАМИ ». TIME DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC REFORMS, no 3 (10 novembre 2020) : 29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.32620/cher.2020.3.03.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The study of foreign trade of the EAEU member countries with third countries is justified by the need to increase its effectiveness. It is necessary for fully State budgets revenue generation, competitiveness increasing of national economies and improving standards of the EAEU member states. The purpose of the article is to analyse and evaluate the economic parameters of the EAEU member states foreign trade and outline main trends and prospects for the EAEU's foreign trade development. The object of the study is foreign trade relations between the EAEU member states and third countries. Methods used in the study. The study was conducted on the basis of program and reporting documents of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Official statistical data for the period from 2014 to 2018 were used. The conclusions are based on economic comparisons and systematization. Research hypothesis. Foreign trade economic indicators of the EAEU member states with third countries have potential reserves of growth. Statement of the main material. Single customs regulation is used in accordance with the EAEU Customs Code. Export customs duties are regulated by national legislation of the EAEU member states. Import customs duties are paid and distributed to the budgets of the EAEU member states according to the standards. The analysis of the economic parameters of foreign trade development of the EAEU member states showed that the EAEU's foreign trade has a tendency to increase, but has not yet reached the 2014 level. Exports dominated in the structure of the EAEU's foreign trade turnover and mainly represented by mineral products to the European Union countries. Originality and practical value. The prospects for foreign trade development of the EAEU member states with third countries are seen in the EAEU export volumes increasing with definition of priority product groups. Conclusion. The diversification of foreign trade of the EAEU member states is possible through exports of high-tech products. Foreign trade increase is possible through the EAEU's trade and economic expansion with other countries and integration associations.
37
Waasdorp, Jim, et Aniel Pahladsingh. « Expulsion or Imprisonment ? Criminal Law Sanctions for Breaching an Entry Ban in the Light of Crimmigration Law ». Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & ; Criminal Justice 4, no 2 (9 janvier 2017) : 247. http://dx.doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v4i2.1070.
Texte intégralRésumé :
At EU-level, the use of substantive criminal law as a response to illegal migration is materialised by both the EU legislator and the Member States individually. EU involvement in criminalizing illegal migration takes place in a twofold manner: directly, through harmonization of national legislations, and indirectly, through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). An example of the latter is the case law of the CJEU regarding criminal law sanctions for breaching an entry ban. In 2008 the EU adopted the Return Directive. This directive aims at establishing common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. To actually effectuate their return, the Return Directive provides for several instruments, inter alia, entry bans. In this article, we will analyse six judgments of the CJEU in the light of crimmigration law and make a distinction between the Member Statesʼ power to classify a breach of an entry ban as an offence and to lay down criminal law sanctions in national legislation, and their power to impose such sanctions.Key notes: Return Directive, entry ban, illegal migrant, criminal law sanctions, crimmigration, expulsion
38
Friðriksdóttir, Bjarney. « Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Comune di Genova ». European Journal of Migration and Law 20, no 3 (12 septembre 2018) : 357–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340029.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.
39
Thym, Daniel. « EU migration policy and its constitutional rationale : A cosmopolitan outlook ». Common Market Law Review 50, Issue 3 (1 juin 2013) : 709–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2013082.
Texte intégralRésumé :
There is much confusion among EU experts about the legal status of third-country nationals. This is hardly surprising, since this uncertainty reflects conceptual tensions at the heart of the European project. Europe's mission of promoting transnational freedom for citizens of the Member States within the single market is not replicated for third-country nationals in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Instead of dismantling borders, EU activities re-confirm the relevance of borders towards third States - both physically through external border controls and legally under the emerging EU immigration and asylum acquis. This article identifies underlying motives and resolves the puzzle by proposing a positive constitutional rationale for the substantive rules of European migration policy. It takes seriously two major reforms brought about by the Lisbon Treaty: the emancipation of migration within the area of freedom, security and justice; and the binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both changes help us to understand that EU primary law represents a noteworthy accommodation of countervailing theoretical arguments about the normative foundations of international migration. EU migration law is committed to a "cosmopolitan outlook", which rejects the traditional notion of unfettered sovereign State control without mandating open borders.
40
Verschueren, Herwig. « Employment and social security rights of third-country nationals under the EU labour migration directives* ». European Journal of Social Security 20, no 2 (juin 2018) : 100–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1388262718771792.
Texte intégralRésumé :
This article explores the employment and social security rights of third-country nationals guaranteed by a number of EU Directives which are specifically meant to promote and regulate labour migration to the EU. Some were agreed with a view to making the EU more attractive for labour migration from outside the EU. Others were meant to (partially) harmonise rights and/or procedures in order to create a level playing field between the Member States. More specifically, it examines the relevant provisions in the Blue Card Directive 2009/50, the Employers’ Sanctions Directive 2009/52, the Single Permit Directive 2011/98, the Seasonal Workers Directive 2014/36, the Intra-corporate Transferees Directive 2014/66 and the Students and Researchers Directive 2016/801. The article emphasises that this set of EU labour migration Directives are the result of a sector-by-sector approach. The EU failed to adopt an overall and common EU labour migration policy and corresponding legal instruments. Even with regard to entitlement to equal treatment in terms of employment and social security rights, these EU instruments lack a common approach and give the Member States room to provide for exceptions. In addition, these Directives do not contain any provisions regarding the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or residence. As a result, they offer additional protection for the social security rights of migrant persons, but they need to be complemented by other instruments such as multilateral or bilateral agreements with third countries, or even human rights instruments.
41
Kosińska, Anna Magdalena. « Standard bezpieczeństwa migracyjnego w świetle aktualnego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w sprawach dublińskich ». Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej 17, no 2 (décembre 2019) : 277–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.36874/riesw.2019.2.11.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The article analyses the current, post-crisis case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cases concerning the so-called Dublin Regulation, i.e. Regulation 604/2013, which establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. The aim of the article is to analyze the standard of migration security in the area of Dublin cases. The key problem for the discussed issue was the judgment in the Jawo case, in which the Court of Justice examined the admissibility of Dublin transfers to the Italian Republic on the grounds that there was a risk of extreme material deprivation of the migrant. The Jawo case is a continuation of high-profile international court rulings in cases such as M.S.S., Tarakhel (ECtHR) and N.S. (CJEU), which decided to suspend transfers to Italy and Greece. Apart from the issues of protection against inhuman treatment, the jurisprudence of the CJEU also draws attention to the issues of legal security, effectiveness and accessibility of administrative procedures for third-country nationals seeking international protection in the EU. Finally, the standard of migration security in the Dublin area also includes the obligation to act in solidarity and mutual trust between the Member States, as set out in the judgments of the CJEU.
42
Favi, Alessandra. « Protecting Asylum Seekers and Migrants in the Context of the Rule of Law Crisis in EU Member States : The Recent Approach of the Court of Justice of the EU through the Lens of the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration ». Laws 11, no 3 (21 avril 2022) : 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws11030037.
Texte intégralRésumé :
In recent times, the CJEU has started to develop its judicial response to the “rule of law crisis” in some Member States. On the one hand, this new trend has emerged also as a reaction to some national reforms concerning asylum and migration law. On the other hand, the CJEU in protecting the EU founding values has deployed its “traditional” competences attributed to it by the EU Treaties, namely the mechanisms of the preliminary ruling procedure and the infringement procedure. Against this background, this contribution aims at investigating this new CJEU’s jurisprudence through the lens of the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration. This will lead us to reflect on how the CJEU’s caselaw could be seen as an effective tool to enhance the rule of law and protect third-country nationals, at least within the EU, and indirectly contributes to increasing compliance with some of the commitments laid down in the Global Compacts, regardless of the position taken by some recalcitrant EU Member States with respect to these documents.
43
Voynikov, Vadim V. « The 25th Anniversary of the Schengen Area and the Impact of COVID-19 ». Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 26, no 1 (1 mars 2021) : 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2021.26.01.03.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract The analysis is concerned with the current state of the Schengen Area, its legal and institutional framework, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on its functioning. The paper demonstrates that COVID-19 has forced EU Member States to adopt unprecedented measures on mobility restriction. The author distinguishes three groups of measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders; a ban on crossing internal borders; a ban on entering into the EU for third-country nationals. All measures were taken on a national level; EU institutions do not have enough competence in this sphere, which is why they have mostly played a coordinating role. Moreover, the pandemic increases the deficit of solidarity between EU Member States. The author concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that the EU needs more powers to react in such a situation. Thus, the EU has to create additional legal instruments for the realization of a common policy on crises affecting the Schengen Area.
44
Berrod, Frederique. « The Schengen Crisis and the EU’s Internal and External Borders : ». Borders in Globalization Review 1, no 2 (21 août 2020) : 53–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/bigr12202019602.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The EU was founded on the project of “Europe without borders”, which means elimination of internal borders between Member States according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The counterpart of this objective has been the transfer of the controls to the external EU borders. In the Schengen area, external borders are controlled by common principles and procedures encompassed in the 2016 Schengen Borders Code. Member States have negotiated the Schengen agreement to maintain such external border controls, with the aim of protecting their citizens from various dangers and guaranteeing their national migration policies towards third-country nationals. Member States have therefore transposed the function of national border controls to the external EU borders. Cross-border cooperation within the EU has developed to reinforce the Schengen Space of free movement and has been jeopardized by the unorganized massive peak arrivals of migrants in 2015. This article analyses whether the 2015 Schengen crisis confirms the security-orientated approach or not, specifically as the crisis confronts the EU with national claims to recover the control of internal borders. It has been argued that this movement is proof of the resilience of Westphalian borders. This article is an attempt to show how European judicial power tried to limit such a national re-appropriation of borders, leading to a functional distinction between internal and external borders that may allow a departure from an exclusive security-orientated approach of external borders of the European Union towards a more cohesive approach to controls at EU external borders.
45
Dąbrowska-Kłosińska, Patrycja. « The Right to Family Reunion vs Integration Conditions for Third-Country Nationals ». European Journal of Migration and Law 20, no 3 (12 septembre 2018) : 251–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340030.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract The article explores the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the clash between the fundamental right to family reunion and the powers of Member States to protect national identity as a manifestation of sovereignty. The recent case-law pertinent to national measures imposing pre-entry, integration conditions on foreigners and the latter rights under the Directive 2006/83/EC (‘FRD’) on the right of third-country nationals to family reunion provides a basis for the analysis. The aim of this article is to establish and appraise the Court’s approach to the conflict in question. My claim is that the CJEU should have been more restrictive in its reasoning regarding the pre-entry integration measures, and that its interpretation based on individual assessment, proportionality principle and effet utile may not be sufficient for a scrutiny of national powers under FRD. I thus argue that the Court should be more proactive to provide a constitutional, contextual and systemic interpretation of the right to family reunion under the FRD, Article 7 and 24 of the EU Charter and the EU migration law system.
46
Stukalova, Irina B., Anastasia A. Stukalova et Anatoliy V. Shishkin. « Unified educational space of the EAEU member states ». SHS Web of Conferences 103 (2021) : 01050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110301050.
Texte intégralRésumé :
The article deals with the issues of integration of individual national educational systems and the formation of a single Eurasian educational space. The purpose of the article is to assess the degree of readiness of the national higher education systems of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) member states for consistent integration. The assessment was conducted employing the tools of mathematical statistics. At the first stage, the authors formalized the national education system parameters in the form of a scorecard. At the second stage of the study, a comparative analysis of educational systems was carried out based on enlarged groups of quantitative and qualitative indicators. To conduct a comparative analysis of educational systems the authors used comparative logical, descriptive, and cluster analysis methods. According to the analysis results, Armenia and Belarus turned out to be the countries, most close to each other in terms of the totality of qualitative and quantitative indicators of national higher education systems. The conducted analysis allows concluding that Belarus can integrate with other countries most easily. Armenia is ranked the second country capable of such integration. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are in the third and fourth places, respectively. According to the results of the cluster analysis, Russia has shown a minimal degree of integration of the higher education system with other EAEU countries, as it is the leader in terms of several qualitative and quantitative indicators. The authors have empirically proved that the EAEU member states have similar approaches to the organization of the higher education system and can hypothetically be united into a single educational cluster within a single Eurasian educational space.
47
Guidi, Mattia, Michele Piccinetti et Luca Verzichelli. « NextGenerationEU and the European Semester : Comparing National Plans and Country‐Specific Recommendations ». Politics and Governance 11, no 4 (29 décembre 2023) : 339–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i4.7351.
Texte intégralRésumé :
This article examines the main features of the Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) that member states have presented to access NextGenerationEU (NGEU) funds, and it explores the relationship between NGEU and the European Semester. Relying on a dataset collected for this purpose, which coded all RRPs and all recommendations received by the member states in the years preceding NGEU, we explore quantitatively the variation in the countries’ resource allocation and reform agendas and the congruence between RRPs and the recommendations issued in the European Semester. Our analysis reveals three key findings. First, substantial variation exists across member states, reflecting the diverse economic and political contexts shaped by a decade of crises. Second, by disaggregating RRPs into the six policy pillars indicated by the Commission, we show differences in the member states’ patterns of intervention. Third, we offer insights into the extent to which member states address the Semester recommendations. The data we present is a relevant tool for understanding NGEU and generating research questions aimed at exploring its nature and its implementation in the years to come.
48
Spiegel, Bernard. « National approaches of EU Member States in concluding bilateral social security agreements with third countries ». European Journal of Social Security 20, no 2 (juin 2018) : 148–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1388262718780747.
Texte intégralRésumé :
For EU Member States like Austria, the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security schemes are the focus of academic and political attention. They deal with many cases and are usually very complex. They are supervised by the European Commission and the CJEU. Compared to these EU rules, bilateral agreements with third countries are treated as step-children. They do not get the academic and political attention they deserve, taking into account their importance in practice. They have common features compared to the EU rules, but there are also remarkable differences in the texts and their interpretation. The differences sometimes lead to practical problems of application and interpretation in the EU Member States. Based on Austrian experiences, all these aspects are elaborated in this article. Enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between the EU Member States in the future could help to improve the negotiating position of these countries and also guarantee greater esteem for the bilateral agreements.
49
Ganty, Sarah. « Silence Is Not (Always) Golden : A Criticism of the ECJ’s Approach towards Integration Conditions for Family Reunification ». European Journal of Migration and Law 23, no 2 (31 mai 2021) : 176–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340099.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract Over the past 20 years, integration duties imposed on third-country nationals have spread and become more rigid in EU Member States. They increasingly restrict the conditions for obtaining residence permits as well as the benefit of social rights. These integration conditions take on singular forms and raise particular issues in relation to the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and Turkey, in particular with regard to so-called ‘standstill clauses’. The present article begins from the A v. Udlændinge-og Integrationsministeriet case and criticises the Court’s silence about the elephant in the room on the issue of integration conditions towards third-country nationals: racial and/or ethnic discrimination. The case is about an integration condition imposed by the Danish Government as a prerequisite for a ‘family reunion’ residence permit for the spouse of a Turkish worker: the spouses must prove that they have a stronger link with Denmark than with Turkey. The solution adopted by the Court of Justice in striking down this integration condition is not surprising. However, its reasoning suggests more tolerance – or even laxity – about the way the concept of integration is used by the Member States. This situation is problematic insofar as these integration conditions, the very principle of which is questionable per se, conceal increasingly discriminatory and exclusionary measures which the Court is reluctant to denounce, as opposed to the European Court of Human Rights.
50
Elsuwege, Peter Van, Peter Van Elsuwege et Dimitry Kochenov. « On The Limits of Judicial Intervention:EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights ». European Journal of Migration and Law 13, no 4 (2011) : 443–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181611x605891.
Texte intégralRésumé :
Abstract This article scrutinises the logic behind the recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ruiz Zambrano and McCarthy focusing on their implications for the right to family reunification under EU law. Specific attention is devoted to the phenomenon of reverse discrimination in the context of the new jurisdiction test established by the Court, which is based on the severity of the Member States’ interference with EU citizenship rights rather than on a pure cross-border logic. EU citizens unable to establish a link with EU law are often subject to stricter family reunification requirements in comparison to their migrant compatriots and even certain third country nationals. It is argued that this situation is difficult to accept in light of the principles of legal certainty, equality and the protection of fundamental rights. A new balance between EU citizenship and Member States’ regulatory autonomy is established but legislative action is required to solve the outstanding problems.