Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.1.2-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Commissioner Vitorino for this introduction, which paves the way for the presentation of my report. Indeed, the directive we are discussing represents a genuine leap forward in the debate on citizenship of the Union and the free movement of persons. For the first time, the citizen is recognised as having rights not just as an economic entity but as a person, as the holder of individual rights which, together with general rights, make up European citizenship. The rights of free movement and residence derive directly from the European Treaty, they have long been established, as the Commissioner said, and they confer on the citizens new, major fundamental rights. Indeed, one might say that this directive lays the foundations of dual citizenship – national and European citizenship – as formulated in the draft Treaty discussed in the Convention too. The introduction of the right to permanent residence is a concrete example of this.
Before looking at the directive in more detail, we should specify its scope. It is directed at Community citizens and members of their families, of whatever nationality. The principle of equal treatment of third citizens who are members of a Community family has been established since the sixties and the directive makes it even more efficient and effective.
This is a right derived from the right of the Community citizen of whose family they are members. It must be made clear from the outset that this directive does not apply to the citizens of third countries or, in any case, not to those who are not related to Community citizens, even if they are living in a Member State or enjoy free movement within the Union.
The great merit of this directive is that it combines all the previous provisions on the subject in a single text. Another merit is its clarity and, in this regard, I feel that some of the rapporteur’s amendments, not least, have helped to simplify the excessively bureaucratic sections as far as is possible.
The most innovative elements include the proposal to replace the residence card, as the Commissioner mentioned, with a simple certificate of registration with the competent authorities. The registration procedures must be straightforward and direct and, in any case, the principle of self-certification must be applied, as it already is in some Member States. The principle of self-certification must also apply to the provision of proof of income and health insurance cover too. In the case of family members who are third-country nationals, an identity document must be supplied in order to prove the existence of a family relationship, purely in order to prevent abuses, which are always possible.
A further innovative principle introduced by the directive concerns the expulsion of third country citizens who are entitled to residence on Community territory. The directive stipulates that they cannot be expelled under any circumstances whatsoever. This approach applies the ‘Amsterdam objective’, namely the creation of a border-free area of freedom, security and justice, but some of the Member States will probably want to establish their own rules on this matter.
I have saved the most controversial issue until last, as always happens when debates are introduced in this Chamber: the family, its composition and the definitions of couple and spouse. To avoid such a vast wealth of innovative legislation being hijacked by the usual tug of war, as rapporteur, I have striven to be as open as possible, stretching my principles and the principles of the political group I represent to the limits in the interests of completing the process with the directive intact. Moreover, there is no ambiguity over the definition of spouse in terms of Community law, as the Court of Justice has confirmed on a number of occasions. In this connection and in relation to unmarried couples too, the rapporteur has appropriated a number of amendments tabled and then withdrawn by the Group of the Party of European Socialists, which appeal to the laws of the different Member States with a view to putting an end to the discrepancies which still exist at Community level. In my opinion, this democratic appeal to subsidiarity, to national sovereignty, respects all interests and should avoid the usual crusades which could well diminish the content of the report and render its scope ineffective. In short, each Member State can regulate family issues on the basis of its own legislation and concerns. It would be a real shame if we were unable to succeed in delivering a worthy text enjoying broad support to the Council, considering the marvellous opportunity of codecision we have on this matter. Moreover, it is inconceivable that we should impose on 13 States a model supported by only two of them, or that priority should be given to symbols and dogmas rather than responsible rules awaited by millions of citizens who want to be able to organise their lives.
To sum up, it has to be said that the rapporteur’s approach is, for the most part, in line with that of the Commission, which has produced a coherent, objective text which, as we already know, also expresses the Council’s position. We have the opportunity to give the citizens new, modern rules which provide greater guarantees of civil liberties. I am confident that they will be adopted at the vote in this Chamber and I would like to thank the committee draftsmen and all the Members who have contributed to the report with their amendments, which have, without a doubt, improved the content of the directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples