scholarly journals Does the EU COVID Digital Certificate Strike a Reasonable Balance between Mobility Needs and Public Health?

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (10) ◽  
pp. 1077
Author(s):  
Gianluca Montanari Vergallo ◽  
Simona Zaami ◽  
Francesca Negro ◽  
Pietro Brunetti ◽  
Alessandro Del Rio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Certificate ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Sense Of Security ◽  
False Sense ◽  
The Right ◽  
Privacy Issues ◽  
The Eu

The need to fight a highly aggressive virus such as SARS-CoV-2 has compelled governments to put in place measures, which, in the name of health protection, have constrained many freedoms we all enjoy, including freedom of movement, both nationally and within the European Union. In order to encourage and facilitate the return to free movement, the European Parliament has launched a “COVID-19 digital certificate.” A spirited debate centered around the use of this certificate is still ongoing among scholars, many of whom have pointed out the uncertainties relative to COVID-19 immunity, privacy issues and the risk of discriminatory effects. The authors, while highlighting some critical aspects, argue that the COVID digital certificate in its current approved version can effectively help prevent the spread of the infection and promote free movement, while upholding the right to health as much as possible. However, they also stress the need for a thorough information campaign to illustrate the advantages and limitations of this document in order to avoid creating a false sense of security in the public opinion, who may wrongly assume that the emergency has been overcome for good.

scholarly journals Free movement of persons as a component of the value system in the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 6-14
Author(s):  
Iryna Habro
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Value System ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with topical issues of regulating the freedom of movement of individuals as a component of the value system and the key right of citizens in the European Union. After all, freedom of movement itself includes a whole set of rights, which are both a guarantee of other natural rights and a sign of the rule of law. At the core of European values are liberal fundamental rights and freedoms, democratic principles of government, as well as the rule of law and social state. With the creation and development of the European Communities, the regulation of the right of nationals of Member States to move and reside freely has acquired not only national significance, but also a regional (cross–border) scale, which is an example for other integration entities. The European Union is trying to regulate the freedom of movement of individuals in a unified and at the same time as individualized way as possible. This is what is relevant for Ukraine in the context of European integration, because in Ukraine, some of the society has some fears over the loss of sovereignty through accession to the EU. Attention is drawn to the freedom of movement of all categories of EU and third–country nationals. Freedom of movement for individuals within the European Union covers the complex of rights of EU citizens, as well as their family members, for free movement, residence, employment, economic activity and enjoyment of all social rights in each Member State of the European Union, regardless of their nationality. The specific features of the exercise of the right of free movement within the EU for Ukrainian citizens in the context of the Association Agreement with the EU and the Visa–free Agreement between the EU and Ukraine are also identified. The provisions on working conditions apply only to citizens of Ukraine or EU Member States who work legally on the territory of the other party to the Agreement. The Association Agreement is not about freedom of movement for workers.

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.    

Free Movement and Discrimination: Evidence from Europe, the United States, and Canada

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Good Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.

6. Free movement of persons

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

Calls of Duty: Romanian Politicians’ Deontological Discursive Strategies for Securing Free Movement in the European Union

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-66
Author(s):  
Saila Heinikoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Discursive Strategies ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses how the right to free movement within the European Union is presented as a matter of obligation, a duty of the other EU member states, in the discourse of Romanian Presidents and Prime Ministers (2005–2015). An examination of speeches and other statements from these politicians illuminates Romanian political reactions during the period when Romania became an EU member state, and reflects perceptions of Europeanness and European agreements. These issues take on an additional contemporary significance in the context of the Brexit negotiations, and they also add to the broader debate on whether EU norms and obligations are seen as being both just and equally applied. By analysing different types of argumentative topoi, I examine the deontological (obligation-based) argumentation employed in the free movement context. Furthermore, I examine to what extent these arguments are invoked in support of the right to free movement and who this right applies to. I argue that for Romanian politicians, deontological free movement arguments are connected to other states’ compliance with European treaties and to demands for equal application of European rules without discrimination, or the delegation of responsibility to others. This manifested itself most frequently in the calls for the EU and its member states to do their duty by treating Romanians equally to other EU citizens.

scholarly journals Assessing the EU Framework Regulation for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investment—What Is the Effect on Chinese Investors?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-70
Author(s):  
Paweł Mateusz Gadocha
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Chinese Investment ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Relevant Effect ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
New Framework ◽  
The Eu

Abstract An increase of Chinese investment into the territory of the European Union has raised EU regulators’ concerns regarding the public security of the EU. As a result, the new Framework Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of FDI into the EU was adopted as a legal instrument aimed at their control, applicable from 11 October 2020. Adopted within the scope of Common Commercial Policy of the EU, the Framework Regulation, however, might not become an effective legal measure, as its application by Member States both in light of the freedom of movement of capital and the relevant CJEU jurisprudence raises significant legal questions. This article broadly discusses the newly introduced cooperation mechanism between Member States and the European Commission, as well as the relevant effect of the Framework Regulation upon Chinese investment and the pending negotiations of the EU-China BIT.

The EU Citizens’ Directive—An Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the EU Citizenship Directive. The European Union Directive 2004/38 or the EU Citizenship Directive gives effect to the right which EU law provides to all EU citizens and their family members of any nationality to move, reside, and exercise economic activities if they so choose on the territory of any EU Member State. The right to move and reside anywhere in the EU is a right which is accorded to Union citizens by virtue of Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and enshrined in Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The right of free movement of persons in their capacities as workers, self-employed persons, or service providers straddles two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union—free movement of persons and services.

Labour Rights as Human Rights: Implications for Employers’ Free Movement in an Enlarged European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 357-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal status of labour rights as human rights within the European Union (EU) and the implications that this may have for free movement provisions under European Community (EC) law. This is not by any means a new subject for analysis and reflection, but has been of particular concern since the fifth enlargement of the EU which commenced in 2004. It is in this context that we have witnessed significant litigation before the European Court of Justice concerning the scope of the right to strike, and widespread protest concerning the adoption of a new Directive on Services in the Internal Market.

6. Free movement of persons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

The law concerning the election of employees’ representatives in company bodies

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-104
Author(s):  
Bernard Johann Mulder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Made In

This paper assesses the juridical aspects of the right to vote for, and be elected as, employee representative in company bodies. The assessment is made in the light of the pending case Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG, C 566/15 before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case was referred to the CJEU by the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) and it was lodged on 3 November 2015. In the case, two issues related to the provisions of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are addressed to the CJEU. One is if it is discrimination on grounds of nationality, another is if national legislation is incompatible with the provisions on freedom of movement for workers, when the national legislation does not permit inviting employees outside a country’s borders to vote or stand as a candidate for the employee representation in that company’s supervisory body. In this paper it is argued that national law in the case at issue is not incompatible with European Union (EU) law. Consequently, there is no discrimination on grounds of nationality, and there is no obstacle to free movement for workers. Instead, it is a matter of what law shall apply.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document