Euralia and the European Single Market - Case Study Example

Euralia and the European Single Market Concept The European Union has officially emerged into a sovereign being by itself. As a matter of fact, it has extremely altered the international political order. To qualify for Union membership, the most important condition is location. Euralia, which is situated in the eastern part of Europe, is perfectly qualified, conditioned on its compliance with the political and economic pre-requisites.1 (Accession criteria. European Commission Enlargement. [internet]) Consequently, Euralian citizens shall also become Union citizens.2 As such, they shall enjoy certain rights and benefits which are, however, subject to certain constraints. Among the rights conferred upon a citizen of a member state or country is the free movement of goods and persons.3 These freedoms are not absolute though. Within the context of globally accepted legal principles, the laws and rules of the Union, particularly as regarding and relating to its citizens, in general, for the exercise of their rights in the other member states where they are not nationals, in particular, the rationale behind the dynamics of public policy, public security and public health is given paramount consideration. A hypothetical situation may arise concerning a Euralian citizen who has been criminally convicted or who has a highly infectious disease. It may be queried whether there are restrictions on the travel or movement of that convict or sick person throughout the Union. While the cited Article 14 -2 of the EC consolidated treaty provides for the free movement of goods and persons, it has some qualifications. The proviso itself contains the phrase "in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty". Under Title IV, specifically Article 61 - (c), the consolidated treaty is clear on the matter. It declares that the European Council shall adopt such measures concerning cooperation on police and judicial matters. It is further stipulated that these initiatives are geared toward a high level of security which includes actions to prevent and combat crimes.4 This limitation may be construed in conjunction with Article 39 - 3 which specifically says that even the right of workers who are Union citizens to move freely may be constrained or limited for reasons of public policy, security and health.5 The spirit of this limitation or constraint is also enshrined in Article 64-1 of the consolidated treaty, albeit with particular reference to border crossings, which provides that the exercise of the responsibilities of a member state regarding law and order and internal security are not affected by such freedoms. A convicted criminal who is a citizen of a member state poses threats to another state and his entry to the latter may be considered both a judicial and a police matter. It is a judicial matter because the felon had already been finally sentenced guilty and must be brought behind bars in his state of origin in order to serve the ends of justice there. As a matter of fact it is also a political concern because for a member state to allow a convicted criminal from another member state entry into its territory will not only be a violation of the European Union Treaty but may also be construed as a sign of disrespect to a co-equal. Furthermore, the travelling felon can become a liability to the host member state and a menace to its society. It is this aspect which makes the issue also a police matter. This is precisely the spirit and letter of the exceptions to the free travel rights of Europrean Union citizens among member states and sovereignties. An undesirable European Union citizen with a conviction record will be a problem to the security of the member state to which he will travel. Allowing him to enter the territory of the neighboring state will put the police authorities of the latter at a quandary and will be in contravention to the collective efforts to prevent and combat crimes. The kind of threat that the felon will create is the one embraced within the meaning of high level of security which includes dispositions geared toward averting and fighting crimes. Article 27 of Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 mandates Member States have the right to put restrictions on the freedom of movement of European Union citizens, including their family members, for reasons of public policy, public security and public health. In instances which relate to public policy and public security as grounds, the same shall be based solely upon the personal conduct of the citizen in question.6 Former criminal verdicts shall not be grounds per se. If, as in the problem, the criminal convictions still subsist, the convicts are covered by the directive. This means to say that a previous conviction per se which was already served may not be interpreted as a ground for constraints or restrictions on the right of freedom to travel with the explicit condition under the directive that the personal conduct or persuasion of the subject European Union citizen must demonstrate or convey or evoke a genuine, present and sufficient threat as will affect the very interests of the society of the host member territory. On the basis of the general legal precept that what is not included must be excluded, isolated justifications which are of general consideration cannot be accepted as a ground to constrain or restrict the freedom of the right to travel. Similarly, constraints and limitations on the freedom to travel may also be hinged on reasons of public health as can be interpreted under the afore-cited Article 39 - 3 of the consolidated treaty. Contamination of a highly contagious disease is a grave concern for a member state and any visitor from another member state may not be welcome and entry can be therefore refused. This limitation on health concerns is likewise stated in Article 152 - 1 which mandates that national policies shall be directed towards the improvement of health and the prevention of human illness thereby avoiding sources of danger to human health.7 Allowing a stranger, albeit a citizen of the European Union, with a contagious disease to gain ground in the receiving territory can possibly spread the disease and endanger the very citizens and residents of the host member state. Specifically, Article 29 of Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 includes, as among the only diseases which can justify restriction of the freedom of movement, those ailments with epidemic potential as defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organization and other infectious diseases or contagious parasitic diseases which are likewise subject of the protection provisions which apply to nationals of the host Member State.8 It may be importantly noted that diseases or ailments or illnesses which occur after three months following the arrival date of the supposed sick person may not be construed as one of the exceptions to the right to freedom of travel. Frequently asked questions / answers 1. A Euralian national travels to the United Kingdom for a long holiday and needs medical treatment. Is he entitled to the benefits under the National Heath Service. The Euralian national cannot be entitled to the benefits under the National Health Service. The latter, which is actually a form of a medical insurance coverage, is normally available to legal residents of the United Kingdom.9 While it is true that the Euralian national has become a citizen of the Union and can have travel access to the United Kingdom, such status does not automatically make him a resident of the UK. He is in the British territory only for a long holiday and is not obtaining a resident status. The National Health Service is not an instrumentality or agency of the European Union. There is yet no specific provision coming from the European Union or the European Council making a Union citizen a UK resident as a matter of right or as a matter of course. Furthermore, by way of inclusion, the right of any European Union citizen to stay in a host member state is generally under the condition that such stay will not become an unreasonable burden against the social assistance system of the said member state. 2. The wife, a national of the United States, is married to a Euralian citizen. They live in Euralia. The husband has a job offer in the United Kingdom. The wife desires to accompany the husband to UK and settle there. Their marriage though is in the rocks. If the spouses separate, will the wife have to return to Euralia The wife is under no obligation to return to Euralia in the event of a separation between the couple. In almost all modern civilizations, the right of abode is inviolable. A person cannot be forced to live in a place where he does not want to reside.10 Being a Union citizen, she can go anywhere within the territorial sphere of the European Union. And this can be particularly true because if she secures employment in the UK which has not imposed any restriction on Euralian nationals to obtain work permits, she will have visible proof of income that can sustain her. It may also be contended here that Article 14 4 (b) of Chapter III of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 allows a European Union citizen to stay in the host country if he or she is seeking employment therein and there is an evident showing that he or she can be indeed employed.11 3. A Euralian national wishes to live and work in France. Does he have any right to do so If the answer is in the affirmative, what will be the attendant conditions As a citizen of the Union, the Euralian national can live and work in France under the provision of the EU consolidated treaty affording free movement of workers within the Union. While there are restrictions and constraints attached to that freedom, the desirous Euralian national does not have those disqualifications. Besides, there is a clear provision on this under Article 14 - 1 of Chapter III of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 covering the right of residence allowed to European Union citizens. It is stipulated in the cited law that union citizens, together with the members of their families, can reside in the host member state as long as they are not unreasonably burdensome on the host state anent the social assistance system of the latter.12 Furthermore, under 4 -(b) of the said Article 14, this holds more true in the case of a union citizen and his or her family members when they can show proof that they are seeking employment and there is a genuine chance of getting engaged. Works cited Accession criteria. European Commission Enlargement. [internet]. Accessed July 14, 2009. CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. Official Journal of the European Union. December 29, 2006. [internet]. Accessed July 14, 2009. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament, Council of 29 April 2004. Eurlex. [internet] Accessed August 6, 2009. Available at: < http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=CELEX:32004L0038R%2801%29:EN:N OT.) National Health Service (England). Wikipedia. [internet]. Accessed July 15, 2009. Right of Abode. UK Border Agency. [internet]. Accessed July 15, 2009. http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf12rightofabode Word count: Contents and footnotes 2,000 Bibliography and word count summary 98 Read More