Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
Réka Friedery

Family reunification is defined by primary and secondary EU law and by the case law of the CJEU. The cornerstones are the Charter of Fundamental Rights encompasses the principle of the respect of family life and the fundamental European standards for family reunification of third-state nationals are based in the Council Directive on the Right to Family Reunification. The EU directive explicitly confirms among others that family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. The article analyses the way the jurisdiction of the CJEU widens the notion of family reunification and how it offers more realistic picture for the growing importance of family reunification.


2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Nabila El-Ahmed ◽  
Nadia Abu-Zahra

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Piotr Sitnik

In a recent judgment in ERGO Poist’ovňa, a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková, the Court of Justice of the European Union attempted to clarify the ambit of Article 11 of Council Directive of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, that is the circumstances where a commercial agent’s right to remuneration may be extinguished should a negotiated transaction not be executed between the principal and the client. Notably, the Court held that in the event of even partial non-execution of a negotiated contract between the principal and the third party client, provided it happened due to no fault on the part of the principal, the agent’s right to commission is proportionately extinguished. The paper discusses the judgment in the light of previous CJEU case law and the Polish transposition of the said European standards with a view to finding any potential divergences between the two. The paper notes two problems. First, Polish law, as opposed to Slovak law, does not recognize an automatic termination of an insurance contract in the event of default on the part of the customer. Conversely, whether such an effect eventuates is left to contractual discretion of the parties. Second, Polish courts have been recently willing to substitute unjust enrichment for contractual liability even where, it appears, complainants have valid claims under Article 7614 of the Civil Code.


2010 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cecilia Hwang ◽  
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas

AbstractThis article questions the notion that family reunification is the cornerstone of US immigration policies and points to the violation of the right to family reunification in US law. It specifically looks at the forcible separation of legal residents from their families, including foreign domestic workers in the Labor Certification Program; US-born children with undocumented relatives, including parents and siblings; and guest workers. We argue that the growing influence of nationalist politics and big businesses trumps the interests of the family in US immigration policies, resulting in the prolonged and forcible separation of working-class and poor migrant families.


2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-647
Author(s):  
Irwin Cotler

Tant l'article 13 de la Déclaration Universelle des droits de l'homme que l'article 12 du Pacte relatif aux droits civils et politiques consacrent la liberté de circulation dans des termes non équivoques. L'Acte final de la Conférence d'Helsinki contient des références spécifiques à ces deux textes internationaux. Pourtant, le droit à la réunification des familles, corollaire de la liberté de circulation, est cependant perçu en termes différents par l'U.R.S.S. et le Canada, tous deux signataires de cet Acte. À partir d'un cas concret, celui d'Ida Nudel, l'auteur examine la portée de la liberté de circulation et du droit à la réunification des familles en U. R. S. S. ; il jette ensuite un regard critique sur le droit interne canadien et sur la situation des réfugiés dans ce dernier contexte.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document