EU Law Problem Scenario - Essay Example

?EU Law Problem Scenario Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Issues Related with EU Law (Bekka) 4 Recommendations to Bekka 5 Issues Related with EU Law (Klaus) 8 Recommendations to Klaus 9 Conclusion 13 References 14 Introduction Bekka is a national of State X who buys Skiwear from her home town i.e. State X and imports to State Y. In order to promote her products, she often organizes party in the evenings in State Y, where huge number of audiences attends and purchases her products. However, the legal authorities of State Y authorities restricts on organizing such parties as promotional activities. In this similar context, Bekka feels that such acts are irrelevant. Moreover, it has been viewed that she has been also engaged in sale of tinted film which is also restricted for sale in State Y as these products leads to decrease visibility and thereby causing accidents. On the contrary, she admits that such law in State X is indeed not applicable and being a Member State of European Union (EU), laws in both the State i.e. in State X and State Y must be similar. On the other hand Klaus who is married to Haruka, a Japanese national is struggling regarding residence permit. It has been observed that the residential permit of Haruka for State Y was ending and her permit would not be renewed as told by the local immigration office and thus she had to leave the country. In this regard, Klaus strongly realized that being lived in State Y for whole life, it is not justifiable to restrict his wife from living with him in his own country. At the same time, he has been confronted with another problem related with the permission given by Minister for Environmental Affairs about establishment of waste disposal centre adjacent to his property. He firmly believed that such establishment would have radical impact on the flora and fauna of the surrounding area. Moreover, the bad odor released from the waste disposal centre would create significant problem in his hostel business. People are now reluctant to stay in his hostel and further he feels that waste disposal centre should be closed or shifted to another area. Contextually, the paper closely evaluates certain issues of law related with the case of Bekka and Klaus and advise them relating to their concerned matter. Issues Related with EU Law (Bekka) The open movement of goods is one of the critical factors leading towards the success of the EU Member States. The internal business market within the European Union makes easy to buy and sell goods in different Member States. A single European marketplace provides a strong platform in an open and competitive environment1. From lawful standpoint, it can be stated that the principle of free trade of goods is a main element in developing internal business market in the EU. It is viewed to be one of the economic autonomies that frame by the Member States of the EU. The EU defines the scope and content of the principle by prohibiting unjustified restrictions on intra-EU trade. Many of the vital restrictions on free movement of goods have been removed over the years to facilitate smooth functioning of EU trade. The prohibition of any products needs to be justified on the grounds of public ethics, public protection and protection of health as well as life of human, animals and plants. Contextually, member states may possess the right to ban any product on the basis of morality grounds. Therefore, EU law prescribed that goods brought from one state must comply with the national provisions concerning morality factor of the state where the product is being sold. Another important ground for restraint of free movement of goods can be acceptable on the basis of life as well as health of humans. EU law states that any Member States can impose barriers on any kind of products that affects national health and life of human, animal and plants. EU law also ensures safety of customers against deceptive advertisements. EU law also proclaimed that the authorities in one state cannot curtail customers from buying goods of another Member State, if the product is purchased legally2. Recommendations to Bekka It can be stated that Bekka possess the authority to buy skiwear from her home town i.e. State X. However, she should ensure that the purchased goods must meet all the standards that enforce by State X. Any kind of violation of standards may render Bekka to discontinue her business in State Y. Notably she should critically consider the factors or the standards framed by State Y relating to the import of goods from another Member State. It is necessary that Bekka does not breach any sort of standard that impose by State Y3. Furthermore, Bekka should ensure that the product which she intends to sale in the market of State Y should not cause any harm to human, animal and plants life. On the other hand, it is important for Bekka to promote goods in most ethical manner. Bekka’s arrangement of parties can be relatively termed as unethical way of promoting her products4. In this regard, EU laws ensure that customers can acquire those products that they intend and are willing to buy. Any sort of activities pressurizing customers to buy products can be regarded against the EU law that may compel her to discontinue her business. In addition to this, it is quite obvious that during party time, most of the audiences would drink and consequently, they will not possess a strong reasoning ability in the drunken state of mind. Contextually, large audience tends to buy products which they do not need at all. Hence, such practice of promoting products apparently can be termed as unethical and against the law. In such state of mind, audience fails to make proper judgment of what they are purchasing. Moreover, the seller can also charge more prices for the product. In other words, it can be stated that such promotional activities can be treated as another way of customer’s exploitation. It is further suggested to Bekka that she should not arrange parties as one of the tool for promoting her products. Even if she continues to promote her products through arranging parties, she must ensure that the products are not sold to the drunken customers. In other words, consumption alcohol in the party as well as the sale of the products to drunken audience should be rigorously prohibited5. As far as the sale of tinted film is concerned, Bekka should curtail the sale of tinted film after thoroughly considering the fact that sale of such products can lead to serious accidents in State Y due to diminished visibility. As stated earlier, EU law also proclaims the ban of certain products that causes hamper to human life and health. Even though, the manufacturing and sale of tinted film is permissible in her State, she should equally consider the standards of State Y relating to buying and selling of tinted film. It can be assumed that the sale of tinted film may lead towards fatal accidents that may contribute towards the loss of many lives. Consequently, Bekka shall be directly or indirectly liable for such mishaps. It is therefore suggested that Bekka should curtail the sale of those products to general people and if she intends to sale the tinted film, it is necessary that she those films only to the people who are engaged in skier activities. Precisely, it is being suggested that whatever products Bekka intends to sale in the State Y should be legally purchased from the State X and is permissible to sale in State Y. Moreover, it is advisable that Bekka does not get indulged in practicing any sort of activities that tends to be unethical and illegal on any ground of EU law. At the same time, being a responsible seller and a business person, she should also attempt to protect the rights of each and every customer. Issues Related with EU Law (Klaus) The EU consists of 27 individual States and further entitles that all the citizens of EU Member States possess autonomy to live, travel and work in the country of their preference. However, for non EU nation citizens, each state has its own laws governing migration related policies6. EU law states that sponsor (permanent resident of EU) must possess certain level of income in order to facilitate non-EU spouse to stay in the similar EU state. Moreover, EU law also prescribed that after being married to an EU citizen and lived for more than five years, the non-EU spouse is liable to get permanent resident card. However, it should be noted that if the non-EU spouse remains absent from EU States in excess of two repeated years, her permanent resident card can be lost7. The EU has provided considerable efforts towards raising the efficiency of waste management. The EU has enacted several laws to regulate waste disposal for tackling environmental challenges8. In this similar context, EU law ensures that disposal of waste does not cause risk to air, water soil animals and plants. Moreover, it also ensures that waste disposal does not contribute to cause unpleasant odors or disturb the nature and people residing nearby the dumping area. At the same time EU laws prescribes periodic inspections of companies that are involved in waste collection as well as disposal. EU law closely monitors the actions of its different member states and any member states violating the directives issued by EU are entitled to take legal actions8. Recommendations to Klaus After addressing the above stated issues it can be suggested to Klaus that initially, he should carefully analysis the immigration law related with non EU nationals in State Y. This will enable him to identify the requisite criterions that frame by the concerned legal authorities of State Y. Moreover, he should compare those criterions with his personal life related with his wife’s immigration in State Y. Often it is believed that marrying a non EU nationals spouse automatically drives citizenship or residency permits for a particular EU member state. However, in recent times, the government of various countries imposes certain minimum requirements that need to be cautiously followed and fulfilled. Such requirements may be related with the minimum level of income that must acquired by the sponsor for seeking permanent residency for his spouse or any other non EU nationals family members or relatives. Simultaneously, the tenure of spouse living in the particular State of EU also determines the concerned authority response towards granting permanent residency card9. At times, it has also been viewed that certain EU state requires that in order to grant stable residency card, potential immigrant should possess certain degree of fluency in speaking the language of a particular state. Contextually, after fulfilling the aforesaid criterions, one is granted with citizenship or with permanent residency card. Hence, Klaus should evaluate the immigration law enacted in the State Y and analysis if any certain laws are implemented with the State Y or not. If there is any law that restrict or permits for permanent residency, he should relate with his wife’s immigration and match and compare those criterions. Furthermore, if he finds that any sort of injustice has been done with him, then certainly he can opt for taking any legal action. On the other hand, if the case of Klaus is viewed on the basis of humanitarian, it can be claimed that the legal authorities of State Y are imposing restrictions on granting permanent residency cards to Klaus’s wife that can be considered as quite impractical and unethical. Such laws imposing restrictions on living of spouses together is regarded to be a violation of human rights. It is the right given by the society and humanity that the individuals in the world possess exclusive right to live his/her life with their spouse. Consequently, such laws that violates the basic human rights and is against the humanity should not be entertained by any means. Hence, Klaus should seek justice on the basis of human rights10. Nowadays, there are various laws related with the enforcement of effective practices in the context of waste management and waste disposal centre. Governments of different nations have enacted different laws in order to protect their natural surroundings and environment from the harmful impact of waste that are generated from various sources. Primarily in the EU, several directives have been passed that governs the proper management of waste in different EU Member States. Such laws concern that certain assessment is required prior to the issuance of any order that permits the establishment of waste disposal centre in any particular location. The interest of local people where the waste disposal centre is to be established is taken into consideration before issuing orders towards allowing any company to establish waste disposal centre. However, in relation to the case of Klaus, neither the authority of State Y nor EU officials heed towards conducting such assessments. Moreover, the waste disposal centre has also dramatically influenced the hostel business of Klaus. As a result of spreading bad odor from the waste disposal centre, it has leaded the customers to remain off staying from Klaus’s hostel. In addition to this, Klaus firmly feels that the waste disposal centre which established by a private company should be immediately closed. Hence, it is suggested that Klaus and other people residing in the particular area of State Y should initially make the assessment of the impact cause by the waste disposal centre and present the findings to the Minister of Environment Affairs appealing to close the waste disposal centre11. Even if the concerned minister fails to take any consolidated actions, then they can opt to take legal actions against the waste disposal company and Minister of Environment Affairs in the court of justice. If no valid outcome is received from the court of justice, Klaus along with other people can go for peaceful strikes seeking justice and environmental protection10. Conclusion After analyzing the case of Bekka and Klaus, it can be identified that laws in EU and its Members States are not unanimous. Some of the laws of EU and Member States are biased, unethical and against the humanity. As a result, people like Bekka and Klaus often have to face problems with such practice of individual laws prevailing in the EU Member States. Being the Member State of EU, both State X and State Y vary dramatically in terms of rules and regulations impose by the government of the individual State. It depicts the failure of EU to frame common law in its Member states. The laws restricting in arranging parties as a promotional aspect and sale of tinted film in State can be viewed as incompetency in implementing unanimous laws in EU regions. On the other hand, laws that do not allow husband and wife to live together and further placing certain conditions and requirements for them to stay together in one particular State is indeed impractical and unethical. It can be viewed as the violation of human rights. Notably, every individual possess the right to live in any part of the world and any legislation that prevent or restrict such freedom can be termed as ambiguous and vague. Simultaneously, it is the responsibility of Minister of Environment to make necessary assessments prior to issuing orders related with establishment of waste disposal centre. However, it is viewed that EU laws are indeed enacted but seldom implemented. Apparently, it can be stated that such practice of law need to be avoided and a common legislation in entire EU Member States should be implemented unanimously. References European Commission, ‘Screening of Waste Management Performance of EU Member States’ [2012] (Background and objectives) accessed 28 December 2012. European Parliament, ‘Laws for Legal Immigration in the 27 EU Member States’ (2009) International Organization for Migration 5-636. European Union, ‘The EU and Immigration: Opportunities and Challenges’ [2008] (EU Focus) accessed 28 December 2012. European Commission, ‘Free Movements of Goods’ [2010] (European Union) accessed 28 December 2012. European Commission, ‘Consumer Protection in the European Union: Ten Basic Principles’ [2005] (European Communities) < http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_info/10principles/en.pdf> accessed 28 December 2012. Geraint G Howells, ‘The Rise of European Consumer Law— Whither National Consumer Law’ (2006) Sydney Law Review 28, 63. Jackson, C. & Watkins, E., ‘EU Waste Law: The Challenge of Better Compliance’ (2012) Institute for European Environmental Policy 1-13. Oxford University Press, ‘Free Movement of Goods’ [2012] (EU Law) accessed 28 December 2012. David Turton & Julia Gonzalez,’ Immigration in Europe Issues, Policies and Case Studies’ (2003) University of Deusto Bibao 9-235. University of Oxford, ‘Migration of Non-EU nationals: Effects of Recent Policy Changes on Net Migration’ [2012] (Non-EU Family immigration) accessed 28 December 2012. Read More