European Citizens' Third-Country Family Members and Community Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy B. Bierbach
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Home State ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

Read carefully: A Community national leaves his or her home state (the ‘first country’) to work in a host member state (the ‘second country’). While in the second country, he or she exercises the right to family reunification with a spouse, partner or dependent who is not a national of any EU or EEA member state (a ‘third-country’ national). When the Community national returns to the first country together with the family member, what determines the family member's right of residence in the first country? Community law – in which case the Community national would continue to enjoy the right of family reunification as before? Or the national immigration law of the first country, which could potentially dictate more restrictive conditions for family reunification?

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

scholarly journals Administrative Formalities Concerning The Members Of A Family Who Are Not Nationals Of A Member State

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 446-449
Author(s):  
Florentina Lupsa ◽  
Florin Frant
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrival Date ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Family ◽  
Union Citizen

Abstract The member states issue a residence permit to the family members of a citizen of the European Union that are non-nationals of a member state, for the case that their planned residence exceeds three months. The deadline for presenting the request for granting a residence permit is at least three months from the arrival date. The disregard for requesting a residence permit may expose the person in question to indiscriminate and proportional sanctions. The residence right for family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals for a member state is confirmed by issuing a document entitled „Family member residence permit for a citizen of the Union”, in a timeframe of maximum six months from the date that his or her request is presented. A confirmation of filing the request for the residence permit is issued immediately.

scholarly journals Validation of the German version of the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) to assess the impact of disease on the partner or family member

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne A. Elsner ◽  
Sam S. Salek ◽  
Andrew Y. Finlay ◽  
Anna Hagemeier ◽  
Catherine J. Bottomley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Test Validity ◽  
Family Members ◽  
German Version ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) assesses the impact of a patient’s chronic illness on the quality of life (QoL) of the patient’s partner or family members. The aim of the study was to translate, explore the structure of and validate the FROM-16. Methods The questionnaire was translated from English into German (forward, backward, four independent translators). Six interviews with family members were conducted to confirm the questionnaire for linguistic, conceptual, semantic and experiential equivalence and its practicability. The final German translation was tested for internal consistency, reproducibility and test validity. Criterion validity was tested by correlating the scores of the FROM-16 and the Global Health Scale (GHS). Principal component analysis, factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the questionnaire’s structure and its domains. Reliability and reproducibility were tested computing the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using one sample t-test for testing the hypothesis that the difference between the scores was not different from zero. Results Overall, 83 family members (61% female, median age: 61 years) completed the questionnaire at two different times (mean interval: 22 days). Internal consistency was good for the FROM-16 scores (Cronbach’s α for total score = 0.86). In those with stable GHS, the ICC for the total score was 0.87 and the difference was not different from zero (p = 0.262) indicating reproducible results. A bi-factor model with a general factor including all items, and two sub-factors comprising the items from the original 2-factor construct had the best fit. Conclusions The German FROM-16 has good reliability, test validity and practicability. It can be considered as an appropriate and generic tool to measure QoL of a patient’s partner or family member. Due to the presence of several cross-loadings we do not recommend the reporting of the scores of the two domains proposed for the original version of FROM-16 when using the German version. Thus, in reporting the results emphasis should be put on the total score. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered: DRKS00021070.

Human rights of people with mental illness diagnosis: perceptions among service users, family members and health professionals in Tunisia

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayssa Rekhis ◽  
Sami Ouanes ◽  
Abir Ben Hamouda ◽  
Rym Rafrafi
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Content Type ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right ◽  
Main Factor

Purpose This study aims to assess the awareness about the rights of people with mental illness in the main psychiatric hospital in Tunisia among the service users, the family members and the staff. Design/methodology/approach The Convention of Rights of People with Disabilities mandates that State Parties initiate and maintain campaigns and human rights training to promote understanding of the rights of people with mental illnesses, considered as a main factor for their fulfillment. Service users, family members and staff evaluated, through a survey, the importance of ten rights for persons with mental illness, stated in the convention. Findings Disparities were found in the perception of the different rights by and between the three groups. The highest levels of awareness were associated with the freedom from torture or degrading treatment and the right to live with dignity and respect, whereas the lower importance were assigned to the right to participation in recovery plans, to give consent and to exercise legal capacity. Originality/value The lack of awareness and the poor perception of rights of people with mental illness is one of the barriers to their achievement. More training and awareness raising is necessary.

Unfulfilled Promise: Palestinian Family Reunification and the Right of Return

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Nabila El-Ahmed ◽  
Nadia Abu-Zahra
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
The State ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Successor State ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

This article argues that Israel substituted the Palestinian refugees' internationally recognized right of return with a family reunification program during its maneuvering over admission at the United Nations following the creation of the state in May 1948. Israel was granted UN membership in 1949 on the understanding that it would have to comply with legal international requirements to ensure the return of a substantial number of the 750,000 Palestinians dispossessed in the process of establishing the Zionist state, as well as citizenship there as a successor state. However, once the coveted UN membership had been obtained, and armistice agreements signed with neighboring countries, Israel parlayed this commitment into the much vaguer family reunification program, which it proceeded to apply with Kafkaesque absurdity over the next fifty years. As a result, Palestinians made refugees first in 1948, and later in 1967, continue to be deprived of their legally recognized right to return to their homes and their homeland, and the family reunification program remains the unfulfilled promise of the early years of Israeli statehood.

scholarly journals Study of Mental Health Status of the Family Members of Disappeared Persons of Kashmir

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suhail Ahmad Bhat ◽  
Dr. Shawkat Ahmad Shah
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Family Type ◽  
Emotional Control ◽  
Normal Person ◽  
Frequency Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Family ◽  
Anxiety Depression

While trying to portray the picture of mayhem and woes of family members of those who disappeared, it fails to fully convey the agony of the survivors. Their emotions are so intense that a normal person can hardly help his emotional shutters. Even a single experience with a family member of a disappeared person makes one to ponder that how unbearable it is to be a mother, father, wife or son of disappeared person. Their search for the disappeared family member along with hardships of daily life, social stigmas, economic and educational needs have left their mental health par below average level. One finds the words of depression, stress, anxiety, sleeplessness and melancholy in their everyday lexicon. With such a despondent picture of family members of disappeared persons in mind, the present attempt was made to study the nature of their mental health. To achieve this objective, data was collected from 217 family members of disappeared persons of Kashmir. The frequency method and t-test were used to obtain the results. The results of the study showed that majority of the family members scored high in negative dimensions of mental health namely, anxiety, depression and loss of behavioral and emotional control and low in positive dimensions of mental health namely, general positive affect, emotional ties and life satisfaction. A significant difference was found in mental health on the basis of gender, age and family type.

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.    

scholarly journals Vanhuksen oikeus hoivaan ja omaisolettama

Gerontologia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-242
Author(s):  
Laura Kalliomaa-Puha
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Elderly Person ◽  
Social Health ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Know How ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive

Jokaisella vanhuksella on Suomessa yksilöllinen, viime kädessä perustuslaissa taattu, oikeus riittävään hoivaan ja huolenpitoon. Silti tämä oikeus on usein käytännössä riippuvainen siitä, onko vanhalla ihmisellä omaisia tukenaan. Tässä artikkelissa tarkastellaan sitä, miten oikeus hoivaan ja hoitoon taataan lainsäädännössä. Omaisilla ei lain mukaan ole vastuuta hoivan järjestämisestä, mutta silti lainsäädäntö monessa kohdin ikään kuin olettaa omaisten olevan vanhuksen tukena. Vaikka omaiset usein ovatkin tukena, miten perusoikeus hoivaan ja huolenpitoon toteutuu niillä vanhuksilla, joilla ei ole omaisia? Artikkeli nostaa vakavimpana omaisolettaman riskinä esiin ne vanhukset, joilla on omaisia, mutta joiden omaiset eivät osaa tai halua auttaa. Right to care and presumption of family and friends in the Finnish legislation According to Finnish legislation the public authorities must guarantee adequate social, health and medical services for those old persons who cannot obtain means necessary for a life of dignity. Yet in practice this right to receive indispensable subsistence and care often depends on the fact whether the old person happens to have family or friends to help her or him. As if the legislation supposes there are friends and family to help, even though, according to Finnish law, family members do not have legal responsibility to take care of an elderly person. This article elaborates how the right to care is guaranteed in Finnish legislation and what the law says about the responsibilities of the family. Even though most of the relatives do help their elderlies, how is the right to care fulfilled for those old persons who do not have family? Perhaps the elderlies who have family and friends, which do not help or do not know how to, are in the most vulnerable situation.

Cognitive Decline and the Changing Self in Relationship

2015 ◽  
pp. 61-75
Author(s):  
Darby Morhardt ◽  
Marcia Spira
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Cognitive Decline ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Family Roles ◽  
The Family ◽  
Person With Dementia ◽  
The Impact

When a member of a family is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, the impact of the disease reverberates throughout the relationships within the family. This paper explores the challenges and strengths within one family as members manage and cope with Alzheimer's disease. The person with dementia and his family members are individually interviewed and each person explores the consequences of the disease on personal well-being as well as the relationships within the family. The family demonstrates how dementia in one family member demands flexibility in family roles as they navigate life through the challenges of living with dementia.

How Substance Problems Affect the Family Unit

2019 ◽  
pp. 72-78
Author(s):  
Dennis C. Daley ◽  
Antoine Douaihy
Keyword(s):  
Family Member ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Emotional Pain ◽  
Loved One ◽  
Family Unit ◽  
The Family

A family unit is a system in which various parts have an impact on other parts. This chapter looks at how families, concerned others, and friends are affected by a loved one’s SUD. Any family member may be hurt by a loved one with an SUD. The effects may vary among families and among members within the same family, but emotional pain and disruption of family life are common. Attention often centers on the member with the SUD, while overall family pain and distress are ignored. Individuals with SUDs often “underfunction,” which means that other members of the family have to pick up the slack and “overfunction.” This dynamic may change how family members communicate or relate to one another. The effects on families vary from mild to severe—in which a family is torn apart by an SUD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document