scholarly journals EU Citizens, Foreign Family Members and European Union Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Family Reunion ◽  
Eu Member States

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.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law Framework in the European Union: Its Rationale, Origins, Role and International Ramifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-331
Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.

Fundamental Rights and the United Nations Financial Sanction Regime: The Kadi and Yusuf Judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
MIELLE BULTERMAN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Community Regulation ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Right Of Access

Under the UN sanctions regime of Resolution 1267, UN member states are obliged to freeze the assets of persons and entities which are associated with Usama bin Laden, and which therefore reason have been listed by the UN. Within the European Union this ‘UN sanctions list’ is implemented by means of a Community regulation, having direct effect in all EU member states. The regulation was challenged by several individuals and an organization, which were added to the UN sanctions list on the basis of their association with al Qaeda. The regulation was challenged on two grounds. First, the applicants claimed that the Community did not have the competence to adopt the contested regulation. In the second place, the applicants claimed that the Community regulation infringed their human rights (right to property, right of access to court). Thus the CFI was asked to determine to what extent it is competent indirectly to review measures adopted under the UN Charter. This delicate legal question is answered in a lengthy judgment, the legal reasoning of which is not always convincing.

scholarly journals Contradictions in Frontex Operations: the Push-back

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Gábor Kemény ◽  
Michal Vít
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Organisational Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The aim of the paper is to introduce the legal misfits between the standards of human rights as stated by the European Union and the Council of Europe and practical day to day experience related to EU member states. For this purpose, the article focuses on political and legal assessment of the so-called pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish external border and introduces the influencing factors, such as the various interpretation of the legislation, differences in the organisational structure and values. Authors concluded that these factors are endangering the fulfilment of the fundamental rights and the efficiency of the border protection thus the security of the EU and its member states.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT OF “THIRD SAFE COUNTRY” IN THE EUROPEAN UNION LAW

2018 ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
N. Mushak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Group ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

The article investigates the concept of "safe third country" in the law of the European Union. The article analyzes a number of international legal instruments that define the content of the concept of "safe third country". The research provides the definition of "safe third country". In particular, the safe third country should be determined as the country whose territory a person is crossing through the territory of the state where such person is seeking for the asylum, with the ability of that person to apply for asylum and use proper and relevant procedures. In fact, the concept of "safe third country" is applied by the EU Member States only when it is safe to guarantee that foreigners will be able to use the fair asylum procedures on the territory through they passed, and such persons shall be provided the effective protection of their rights. The article also determines the cases of the concept application by the EU Member States. In particular, the competent authorities of the EU Member States are confident that the third country the following aspects should be guaranted: the life and liberty of the applicant are not at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social or political group; the principle of prohibition of expulsion under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 shall be observed; the principle of prohibition of expulsion in case of violation of the right to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by international law is been respected; there is the possibility to apply for a refugee status and to receive protection under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951.

Resolution 2300 (Council of Eur. Parl. Assembly)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-494
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

scholarly journals Inkorporacja acquis Schengen do prawa Unii Europejskiej i prawa krajowego państw członkowskich

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Gruszczak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

This article takes up in the form of an interdisciplinary legal and political analysis the issue of the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into European Union law and the national legal systems of the EU member states in the light of the concept of a hybrid system of territorial governance. Accordingly, the Schengen acquis stimulated the process of intersecting the interests of internal security and the protection of Member States’ borders with the supranational ideological imperative with regard to the principle of free movement of persons. The argument developed in this article is that the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into EU law consolidated hybridity of the legal and institutional construction of the EU after the Amsterdam Treaty as a result of the contradiction between the logic of political bargain at the intergovernmental level and the vertical spillover generated at the supranational level in the institutional and decision-making dimensions. The conclusions point to the emergence, as a result of “schengenisation”, of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, in which the principle of free movement of people brought about diversification of the states’ adaptation mechanisms in relation to the ideologically determined project of transformation of the system of management of the territory and borders within the European Union.

scholarly journals The Right to a Name Versus National Identity in the Context of eu Law: The Case of Lithuania

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-363
Author(s):  
Aistė Mickonytė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
National Identity ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines national regulations relating to the recognition of names in official documents by focusing on Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, having particular regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn. It also assesses the potential impact that this and other cases before the ecj and the European Court of Human Rights may exert on national minorities. The recognition of names is not regulated in European Union law; thus, the eu member states may freely determine the usage of names in official documents, as the state language represents a constitutional value and part of the national identity of many eu member states. Therefore, only regulation of names that causes excessive interference with the exercise of freedom of movement or respect for private and family life is unlawful under eu law. This issue will also be discussed in light of Article 4(2) of the Treaty on the European Union, by which the ecj assesses these types of interference with the eu’s duty to respect the national identities of its member states.

scholarly journals WHEN THE EU HITS HOME: NATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Aleksei Sorbale ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Party System ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
National Level ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Regional Strategies ◽  
The Eu

This study analyzes 25,516 cases of violation of the European Union law by 28 Member States from 1993 to 2018. I strive to outline the national level determinants of differentiation in the pool of member countries by the total number of the EU law violations. As a key method of analysis, logistic regression is used, where factors of GDP per capita (PPP), polarization of the parliament, fragmentation of the party system, regional strategies and quality of governance are used as country attributes. The analysis demonstrates that all country attributes are significantly related to all four quartiles of the outcome, which rank member states depending on the number of violations during the period under review: from the smallest share of violated directives (Q1) to the largest share of violated directives (Q4). The results of the study demonstrate the empirical relevance of the theoretical perspective of “worlds of compliance” formulated by G. Falkner et al. (2007) for the categorization of EU member states in their reactions to the compliance efforts of the EU.

scholarly journals Improving the Regulatory Framework for Countering Extremism in the European Union (Case Study of Finland)

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
P. S. Dolgoshein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

INTRODUCTION. The article, using the example of the Republic of Finland, analyzes the activities of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) to improve the legal regulation of countering extremism. The influence of the EU on the tackling against extremism and radicalism in the Republic of Finland is examined. The role of the EU in countering global threats, the position of Finland in relation to international co- operation in countering extremism and radicalism is assessed. The methods used in Finland to counter violent extremism are being studied.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article examines the conceptual documents of the UN, EU and Finland; Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, an action plan to prevent violent extremism, Commission Staff Working Paper; Comprehensive assessment of the EU security policy; Message from the Commission to the European Parliament, European Council Ninth report on progress towards an effective and genuine Security Union; Finland's response to OHCHR's request for information on how the protection and promotion of human rights contribute to preventing and combating violent extremism; Finland's Chairmanship Program for the Sustainable Europe Sustainable Future program; Decision of the Commission on the creation of the Expert Group of the HighLevel Commission on Radicalization, Report of the Council of Europe Committee on Counter-Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism Profiles Finland, Report of the Government of Finland on human rights for 2014; decisions of the Expert Group of the High-Level Commission on Radicalization; Human Rights Council materials.RESEARCH RESULTS. The author puts forward the thesis that the measures used to counter violent extremism depend on the needs of Member States and require the development of various approaches, depending on specific circumstances. In the addition, there is a common interest in EU member states in further expanding the exchange of experience and close cooperation between various national actors at the pan-European and international levels to counter extremism and radicalism. These measures require the development of new regulatory measures, including international ones. The author believes it is possible and interesting, using the example of the Republic of Finland, to study the level of interaction and cooperation between the Member States and the European Union in the field of im- proving the legal regulation of countering extremism, as well as the measures used in Finland to prevent and combat violent extremism.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In EU Member States, the European Union plays a key role in shaping international cooperation, which includes strengthening the existing governance system and, when necessary, reforming the existing system for preventing and countering violent extremism, subject to the fundamental principles of the United Nations. The Republic of Finland fully supports the efforts of the international community to prevent and counter extremism, through the development of international anti-extremism instruments to help states collectively combat this threat. The educational system of Finland can successfully form the fundamental foundations for countering violent extremism.

scholarly journals The EU Regulatory Competition in Asylum Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
Denard Veshi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper deals with the principle of subsidiarity in asylum law. It exposes some of the most important ‘push’ factors that have been considered by the European Union (EU) as arguments for the centralisation of asylum law. Through the application of an economic approach, this text examines the need for harmonization of asylum standards to reach the goal established in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. An economic methodology is used to investigate the application of the subsidiarity principle by considering some of the most important economic criteria for both centralisation and decentralisation, and by applying the findings to the asylum law. Specifically, this paper considers the Tiebout model, the problem of the ‘race to the bottom’, the reduction of transaction costs, and the importance of the protection of refugee human rights. These theories are commonly used in the cases of a specific issue with a transboundary nature, which produces [negative] international externalities. In addition, they reflect the significance of equal conditions within the EU Member States as well as the role of the EU as a sui generis organisation protecting human rights. It should be noted that this paper does not deal with the basic normative question of whether or not refugees deserve protection, but it aims to expose the advantages and disadvantages of an EU asylum policy. In its conclusion, the paper discusses the advantages of a centralised EU policy that also allows, within certain conditions, some type of competition between the Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document