Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.2.3-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank all of you who have, through your comments, contributed to fuelling this debate. Before embarking on an explanation of my report, I would like to start by asking you a question that I cannot get out of my head. This is in my view the crux of the problem described in my report and will determine the way we vote. This question is: what in fact does European citizenship really mean? Is it just a simple expression aimed at selling Europe, or do we really want to add content to this term?
In conclusion, I hope that I have persuaded you to support this resolutely citizen-centred approach of freedom of movement and residence, which is a fundamental issue for awareness of a European identity. At a time when discussions about the future of Europe are hitting the headlines, and when we are examining a future charter of fundamental rights, we must support any project aimed at providing an area of freedom, justice and equality, where all the residents and citizens who contribute to the construction of Europe must have the same rights. Perhaps it is time that people acquired the same rights as the products they consume.
Today, for the majority of us who live in Europe, European citizenship is still a concept that is devoid of meaning. If we want Europe to be more than a vast free trade area, we must take action to ensure that European citizenship goes beyond the status of a concept and takes root in the everyday life of the citizens of Europe. This is the context in which I wish to place this debate. The directives that have been examined concern Community nationals, but they must be modified in favour of third-county nationals.
The report aims to sum up the reality of the freedom to move and reside in the European Union. With reference to the EC Treaty, my report was written with due regard to Article 14, concerning free movement of persons, and Articles 17 and 18 concerning European citizenship, which entails the right to move and to reside freely throughout the territory of the European Union. Although Member States have made great progress in ensuring the free movement of goods, services and capital, it is clear that we are no nearer to achieving the same for people.
I will start by filling in some of the background and the content of the directives. Initially, freedom of movement was reserved for people who were economically active. In June 1990, the Council adopted three Commission draft directives to extend this right to all Member State nationals, even if they were not economically active. I will just give the broad guidelines of these directives. For retired people and other non-economically active people, the right of residence is open to those who have health insurance cover and adequate means. For students, the right of residence is subject to the condition that the student is enrolled at a recognised educational establishment and that he is covered by sickness insurance. In both cases, spouses and dependent children may accompany the holder of the right of residence and may work.
The transposition of these directives was doubly problematic. On the one hand, the directives were transposed extremely slowly throughout the Union. What is more, the Commission had to initiate fourteen infringement procedures. The Commission concludes that ‘for too long, EU citizens have been denied some of their rights or been faced with unjustified administrative difficulties due to the incorrect transposition of the Directives’.
Let us now proceed to a concrete assessment of the situation. This right to free movement and residence, which is confirmed in the Maastricht Treaty, is violated by economic considerations. The notion of adequate means is incorrectly interpreted by governments. What income is to be taken into account when evaluating means? What evidence must be provided? How does one take into consideration a progressive financial situation which sometimes depends on the help provided by the spouse? Because the acceptance procedures are long and difficult, it is often necessary to take out a second health insurance in the host country. When you are not in salaried work, it is difficult to obtain a residence permit and the instability of the professional situation is added to by the short-term nature of the residence permit once it has been obtained.
With regard to special measures justified in the name of public order, the Commission gives examples of many cases of incorrect interpretations, such as criminal convictions that justify systematic deportation and expulsion. Finally, administrative procedures are too long – more than six months – and become very costly when frequent renewal is necessary, as the period of validity is normally two years rather than five.
I will now present the main measures advocated with a view to overcoming these problems. Our first proposal is to ask the Commission to prepare a framework directive, which would adopt a position based on the fundamental right of free movement and residence rather than on a sector-specific approach which necessarily leaves room for ambiguities. It will still be possible at a later date to implement a whole raft of specific measures to help citizens depending on their particular situation. This reworking of the existing directives must dissociate the fundamental right of movement and residence from any economic considerations. These measures must be concomitant with simplifying administrative procedures and providing documents free of charge. Until these mechanisms can be put in place, a transitional measure may be to introduce a one-year residence permit for all applicants. Harmonising social protection systems and pension systems is vital. Finally, in the case of special measures justified by the notion of public order, we can only call on Member States to narrow down their interpretation, to put an end to the double penalty and to protect certain categories of people from expulsion.
I would like to finish by clarifying a number of points. Rights must be attached to the individual and the individual must take the rights with him wherever he goes. Third-country citizens living and working legally in a Member State must benefit from the same rights as European citizens. Furthermore, it is a pity that the Council has not followed up this proposal of citizenship and residence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples