European Union problem question - Essay Example

?European Union Problem Question Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Question 3 Question 2 6 Question 3 9 Question 4 11 Works Cited 16 Question 1The ‘free movement’ of employees is considered as a fundamental principle of people in Article 45 of the European Union Act. Under this act, every EU citizen is entitled to search for job in other EU countries and work there without any consent. Besides, EU residents can reside in other countries for job purposes and live even after their service term is completed. They are bound to receive equal treatment similar to other residents regarding accessing the employment, working conditions and other public and tax compensations. The free movement of employees also applies for other nations in “European Economic Area” such as Ireland, Norway and Liechtenstein. However, people who are not the citizens of EU country are deprived from these facilities1. The right to reside permanently in EU country (such as the UK or Netherlands) can be proclaimed by an employee with prerogative of old age allowance, or who has been working in a particular nation for almost one year and resided there constantly for above three years2. According to the Article 15 of EU law, every person has the right to work and seek job in any member state. The right to work generates legal responsibilities to assure the “freedom of work” and to arrange for free working in the employment market3. The “freedom of work” through European Union countries is a fundamental right which encompasses a region without internal boundaries where independence is guaranteed in agreement with the endowment of the treaty. This right is applied under certain conditions and also approved to the family members, regardless of the nationality. However, the description of “family member” must comprise the registered companion, if the law of host country treats registered companion as comparable to marriage. In the context of free movement, marriage partners who are not nationals of an EU member country must obtain visa while crossing the border unless they have acquired the residence card4. As Juanita was Columbian national from the beginning, she should acquire permissions from the “Secretary of State” in order to get visa. The immigration rule to enter UK depicts that a couple, in this case Roger and Juanita, must be capable of representing adequate original documented proofs which can specify that they have enough money, acceptable housing facility, and have not any supplementary resources for the non UK partner. However, there are other particular exemptions in this regulation which should be pursued by Roger in order to make Juanita enter in the UK5. Marriage in overseas nation takes place after mutual authorisation. The legal structure practiced in foreign states can act together with the law of UK in a complicated manner, and therefore the direction of ‘surrogate or registrar’ is essential in order to avoid complications in marriage and immigration problem in the UK or Netherlands. In present days, the laws regarding marriage and national immigration obligation are different in the UK and the Netherlands. The reason why Juanita faced problems while entering in the UK was due to its strong immigration policy system and its continuous development or transformations. There are increased concerns about the purpose of marriage, because some couple might conduct agreement marriage exclusively for immigration reasons. As marriage to someone authorises to live or work in the UK, it can considerably enrich the right for the foreign person. Therefore, a mutual authorisation is required for Roger and Juanita. It is obligatory for Roger and Juanita to confirm that marriage authorisations are not settled, as there is a strong probability of viewing their marriage as fake and only a means to enter in the UK. The key issue is whether they seek genuine marriage in the sense that they are undertaking a promise to lastingness. Simultaneously, when the appeal for marriage ascends out of genuine association, and is not fake, proxies should be aware that the couple has a requirement to marriage and should not be deprived of his/her legal rights6. If the entrance and work of Juanita in the UK is viewed as a matter of immigration control, it is essential that they are being afforded the chance of proper countrified communication with community minister, who should discover the background of the couple’s association and their plans for future marital life. In order to legalise their position there is need for communicating with the attorney of Citizens Advice Bureau, which is significant for getting request of mutual authorisation. If the relationship of both is genuine, it would be disproportionate to refuse the authorisation of Juanita to enter in the UK for working purposes. The dominant interest in Juanita’s right to enter is to ensure that their marriage is based on genuine intention, and is not abused in order to evade the immigration laws of the nation4. Question 2 The Dutch Drug Policy is considered as one of the most significant controversial policies among different nations in the world. The drug rule system of Dutch has won both compliment and blame due to its unique characteristics. The Dutch Drug Policies had faced several critical feedbacks from countries like USA, France and Sweden because of several misinterpretations and myths. In Netherlands, the community health care is the significant aspect of drug policy. The main aim of drug policy in Netherlands is to protect the health of people as well as to maintain a healthy environment. With respect to use of cannabis, the Dutch drug policy is quite reputed internationally. In the year 1976, the assembly of Dutch reviewed the “Opium Act” and developed an official argument between utilisation of cannabis and other drugs. The users of cannabis are subject to relative tolerance by the police in Dutch7. Under the law and principle of discretionary right, possession of 30 gram of cannabis or less was not illegal under the revised Opium Act of 1976. However, the consumption of more than 30 gram of cannabis was considered as a serious legal offence in Netherlands under this revised act8. According to the non-discrimination standard, every person or group necessitates equivalent treatment irrespective of the specific characteristics such as race and nationality among others. The Article 18 forbids discrimination of people on the basis of nationality9. Discrimination in this regard is considered as following different conducts on the basis of subjective or assimilated standards such as gender, religion, nationality, marital status, disability, political thoughts, cultural context, and trade union membership activities. Any discrimination on the basis of above criteria is subject to legal offence and thereby can be challenged in the court8. In this case, it has been observed that Roger was prohibited to enter in the cafe in Netherlands due to law which inhibits other than the Dutch people to enjoy cannabis. This was the case of violation of discrimination standard due to different treatment. In legal term, the different treatment is considered as certain group of people contrarily in comparison with other persons. The EU rules forbid discrimination and require creation of unbiased explanation for conducting so10. Due to much liberalisation in the use of cannabis, several tourists started arriving in Netherlands in order to enjoy alcohol and drugs, which became a matter of growing political stress from several nations about the Dutch drug policy. Therefore, new policies had been formulated in Netherlands about utilisation of drugs such as cannabis. According to new policies, the local government can liberally choose if they will permit coffee shops to stock cannabis or not5. Under the new rule, no coffee shops which are allowed to stock cannabis can sell above 5 grams of cannabis or other drugs to a person at a time. Presently, consumption of cannabis is viewed as one of the legally punishable drugs in Netherlands and it is a subject to ‘drug tourism’. As coffee shops are considered to be the major consuming and retailing stores of cannabis under the Dutch drug policy; therefore, it is no surprise that local authorities of Maastricht city had prevented the use of cannabis by restricting their use on some specific coffee shops11. This appears unlawful because the local law discriminated the use of cannabis for Dutch nationality where people of different nationality or region cannot use cannabis which is illegal under EU law. Therefore, Roger can complain about the local law that they have violated the rule of equality and only provided permission to enter the Dutch citizens. Question 3 The European exchange rate instrument is a structure which is developed by European Community (EC) in order to decrease the exchange rate inconsistency and accomplish financial steadiness in the Europe. The objective of exchange rate is to improve the stability of currency as well as to gain evaluation mechanism for potential Eurozone members. Due to the yearly adjustment of exchange rate, Roger had faced huge losses led by dramatic exchange rate movements8. Under the European Union (EU), Roger (an employee of Eastminster University which follws the exchange rate formulae) has the right for effective remedy and fair trails of this misalignment of exchange rate in EU regulation. Under Article 47 of EU law, everyone of EU member countries are allowed for a reasonable and open enquiry within a rational time by an autonomous unbiased tribunal recognised by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented8. In EU, Roger has the right for effective remedy in case any unjustified violation is commenced by the commission. This principle is vital by the conception of effective right of persons that establishes an indispensable feature of democratic responsibility. The court of justice has recognised special significance to the principle in challenging that any person can enjoy the prospect to proclaim his right through courts as actually required by the concept of legal control of the policymaking which inspires the common legitimate ethnicities among the member nations12. The use of fundamental right in order to construe EU regulation is also used to restrict the environments in which EU regulation is trapped down, because the court might seek to secure a benevolent clarification wherever possible13. The “European Court of Human Right” which was established in the year 1953, has been selected to receive the court’s voluntary jurisdiction. The court consents the claim of events of human right abuse from individuals. Thus, in order to exercise the right over the low pay, Roger needs to apply almost all national legal remedies14. Under Article 263, Roger can also seek to challenge the fundamental regulations of exchange rate on which the decision of salary amount has been decided. In addition, Article 343 can provide instrument for the loss of money of Roger due to consequences of EU regulatory action. The bases for appraisal of grievance made by Roger are identical with Article 263 of EU law15. The European Commission takes proceedings of people either in the form of grievance or in the form of own ingenuity. As commission has no enquiry service, the grievances are brought on the basis of information gathered from miscellaneous sources such as though press, or other applications or modern technological sources like internet databases, unless member states are unable to inform their application of an instruction. The commission evidently continues to value and to uphold best assistance of violation process which allows disputes over implementation to be decided at pre-contentious phase or even after the formal phase has been initiated, without real remedy to the court12. There are different grounds of judicial review under which any a person can seek action in the court against any particular conduct. In case of Roger, he can take actions on the basis of “relevant and irrelevant consideration” of judicial review grounds, by stating that the formula on which his salary is calculated was inappropriate16. Roger can use his right through filing grievance in the high court or European court of justice, in order to seek answer about his pay cut due to exchange rate formula. There are ranges of instruments in EU commission for resolving grievances of people such as internal network, national consideration, and even domestic trial actions. In case of infringement of human right, the commission can also emphasise on an array of mechanisms such as explanatory statement, stress from peer groups, warning obligation, transparency movement, exchange and information and practice, so as to recognise that whether the exchange rate formula has been applied for calculating salary is fraudulent. There is a possibility of frustration to appear for Roger during implying his right because of difficulty in obtaining related documents for infringement proceedings, and there is less probability to succeed as the Eastminster University is bound to follow the regulation of EU17. Question 4 Under the fundamental right of human being, every person is permitted to an impartial and open trial within a rational time by a self-governing and unbiased tribunal developed by law where everyone has the likelihood of being counselled, fortified and represented. Similarly, any person who has suffered loss due to action or indecision of a community or an organisation can seek reparation before the European court of justice. The EU court system involves three benches which are European Court of Justice (ECJ), the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. Previously, there was only one court, but as the quantity of legal cases increased, it became impossible for one court to solve all those legal proceedings which generated the demand for establishing General Court by following the European Act18. Under the judicial review, every person can challenge the fairness of decisions enacted by the ministers, government branches, local establishments and other public units. The main basis of challenging the law is that decision makers have performed beyond the latitude of the statutory establishments. The bases which are considered for bringing claim in judicial review are: Illegality: Illegality can occur in several ways such as acting in ultra-vires, illegally entrusting power or making improper decision, and allowing for the impudent considerations16. Irrationality: Any kind of irrational standards is bad for judicial system. Every legal system must act sensibly. Complaints can be made not on the basis of decision taken, but on the process by which any decision is made. For instance, any irrational decision may include biasness, failure to demonstrate appropriate behaviour, failure to provide adequate explanations for any decision, and failure to fulfil the authentic expectations16. Therefore, under the ground of impudent consideration of judicial review of Article 267, Roger can refer the issue of loss of payment to the European Court of Justice19. Under the judicial review, the Eastminster University Grievance Tribunal can refer the issue of unlawful measure or can force Eastminister University for implementing a measure which had been improperly adopted20. The judicial review provides applicants with the means to challenge the EU actions which they believe to have impacted them adversely. As can be observed in the referred case study, the adjustment of exchange rate in Eastminster University occurs once in a year instead of once in a day and it had impacted adversely on the pay of Roger. Thus, he can seek judicial review against this act by claiming that it affected his standard of living. Article 263 allows the European Court of Justice to appraise the validity of action of Eastminster University other than commendation. Whereas, reviewable actions undoubtedly contain lawfully obligatory acts, viz. regulations, commands, and decisions, other types of action may also be subject to judicial review. For instance, the European Court of Justice held that adjustment of exchange rate of EU agreement can be challenged14. The right to convey a legal challenge against any regulation before the court depends on the potentiality of claimant’s status. There can be three kinds of claimants which are privileged, semi-privileged and non-privileged. The privileged claimants encompass assembly, commission, and legislature among others, and therefore they do not require instituting any specific curiosity in the validity of EU regulations. They possess unrestricted and involuntary right to fetch the benefits mentioned under Article 263. The semi-privileged claimants including the court of examiners and board of the districts among others possess upright under Article 263 for the purpose of defending their rights whenever their interests are affected11. The non-privileged claimants include all other persons apart from the privileged and semi-privileged immigrants. Their challenges against any action on regulation can be filed in the General Court, with legal claim lying to the Court of Justice. Unlike other claimants, the non-privileged applicants’ rights to access the European Court of Justice are strictly restricted11. According to Article 263 of EU Act, any usual or legal person may instigate actions against a regulation addressed to that individual or which is straight and personal concern to them and also which does not necessitate implementing measures. In other words, Roger can challenge the following: A regulation which is addressed to him/her A regulation addressed to other individual which is of direct and personal concern to the him A regulatory act which is of direct concern to him as well as which does not necessitate instigating actions11 In EU law, the right to reasonable trial is not limited to grievances concerning to civil rights and accountabilities. This indicates one of the noteworthy features attributed by the union signifying itself as a community-oriented figure relative to the regulations specified by the court. However, the assurances afforded by European Court of Human Right (ECHR), in all aspects, smear in a similar method to the union. In keeping with the regulation of ECHR, provisions should be made for legal assistance where the non-appearance of such assistance would make the claim impossible to certify an actual remedy for Roger21. Works Cited Berman, Gavin. “Judicial Review: A short guide to claims in the Administrative Court”. February 17, 2012. House of Commons Library, 2006. Cini, Michelle. European Union Politics. Oxford University Press, 2007. Craig, Paul P., & Burca, Grainne De. EU Law: Text, Cases, And Materials. Oxford University Press, 2008. Chalmers, Damian., & Et. Al. European Union Law: Cases and Materials. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Daily Mail. “Tourism Suicide: Dutch to Ban Foreigners from Cannabis Coffee Shops”. January 27, 2012. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 2011. European Commission. “Free Movement - EU nationals”. February 17, 2012. Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, No Date. Eurofound. “Right to Work”. February 18, 2012. European Industrial Relations Dictionary, 2010. Eurofound. “Worker’s Right to Remain”. February 18, 2012. European Industrial Relations Dictionary, 2007. Eurofound. “Discrimination”. February 17, 2012. European Industrial Relations Dictionary, 2011. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. “Article 47. Right to an Effective Remedy and To a Fair Trial”. January 27, 2012. Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. El-Agraa, Ali, & Ardy, Brian. The European Union: Economics and Policies. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Fitzroy Legal Service. “Grounds of Review”. February 18, 2012. The Law handbook, 2012. Human Rights Education Associates. “The European Human Rights System”. January 27, 2012. Study Guides, No Date. Justice. “Art 47. Right to an Effective Remedy and To a Fair Trial”. January 27, 2012. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2004. Kaczorowska, Alina. European Union Law. Taylor & Francis, 2008. Korf, Dirk, J. “Dutch Coffee Shops and Trends in Cannabis Use”. Addictive Behaviors 27 (2002): 851-866. Law Centre. “Marriage, Civil Partnerships And Unmarried Partnerships: UK Immigration Rules” January 27, 2012. Marriage and partnerships: UK Rules, 2010. Legal Centre. “UK Marriage (Spouse Visa)”. January 27, 2012. UK & EEA Immigration, 2006. Oxford University Press. “Direct Actions In The Court Of Justice Of The European Union”. January 27, 2012. Overview: Article 263 TFEU, No Date. Solinge, Tim B. “Dutch Drug Policy In A European Context”. Journal of Drug Issues 29.3 (1999): 511-528. The Faculty Office. “Advice From The Faculty Office Of The Archbishop Of Canterbury On The Marriage Of Foreign Nationals By Ecclesiastical Preliminaries”. January 27, 2012. FacultyOfficeGuide, No Date. UK Border Agency. “European Union”. February 17, 2012. Policy and Law, 2004. Read More