Introduction
The topic that connects all three stories in question four is the legal opportunity of EU nations for unrestricted movement in the European Union. The first case is connected with the right of Alicia, the Romanian national, to move her elderly uncle with dementia to France and ensure that he has the right to residential care in this state if his health condition aggravates. I plan to refer to Article 24, parts 2.2. and 3.2(a) of the Citizens’ Directive in this discussion. The second case features the story of Brandan, the Irish citizen, and his civil partner Zaiden, a British national, to move to France and receive permission to work there. Article 23 from the directive is used as the legal explanation for this scenario. The third case is about Cosme, who was arrested for possessing drugs 15 years ago, but now she wants to live in France as a Portuguese national. Article 27 from the Citizen’s Directive is the legal authority for this situation. Therefore, moving to another EU state is connected with certain complications and peculiarities for EU nationals.
Case 1
According to the case study, Alicia is a citizen of Romania, and she is the caregiver of her elderly uncle, who cannot cope without external help with his mild dementia. She plans to move to France, but she is not able to leave her uncle. Alicia asks whether she has the legal opportunity to move her uncle, a Romanian national, to France and provide him with residential care for dementia. The issue is connected primarily with the legal status of Alicia’s uncle, a Romanian citizen living in France, and his legal opportunities for receiving healthcare services legally.
The principles of the Citizens’ Directive can be applied to this case because the document discusses the rights of the EU citizens and free movement between the union countries. According to the first part of the directive, every citizen has the legal opportunity to reside without restrictions on the territory of the state that is a member of the EU. Certain limitations are the exceptions to this general principle. It is critical to apply this universal directive to all citizens of the states of the European Union. The case of Alicia can be discussed from the perspective of part two of the directive that says that all citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to share the liberties of the internal market. Family members have the right to provide and to receive services in the EU, and healthcare belongs to this category. The elderly uncle is also a Romanian citizen, meaning he has the right to move to France with Alicia and use the healthcare services of this country.
The relevant articles that correspond to this situation are 2.2. and 3.2(a). According to article 2.2 of the directive, Alicia’s uncle belongs to the category of a family member. The uncle is the direct dependent relative in the ascending line, as described in part “b.” Therefore, the directive can be applied to this case, and the uncle has the legal right to move with Alicia to France. According to part 3.2 of the directive, the member state of the European Union should facilitate the residence of an elderly uncle of Alicia. He requires Alicia’s supervision and health assistance, making him eligible to move to France.
Article 24 of the directive discusses equal treatment of all European citizens, which corresponds to Alicia’s case. According to this part of the legislation, people with the right to permanent residence in the Member State should have equal opportunities as the nations of the EU countries. The rights of the family members of people with the right to permanent residence include healthcare help.
Therefore, the elderly uncle, a direct relative of Alicia, has the right to move to France and receive professional medical assistance as a person with permanent residence until Alicia stays in the country and legally works there. Article 24, parts 2.2. and 3.2(a) of the Citizens’ Directive guarantees him equal rights as the citizens of the Member State have. Alicia’s legal status allows her to receive permanent residence in France. Her uncle is her direct ascending relative, who needs constant help from Alicia, which makes him dependent on her.
Case 2
According to the case scenario, Bradan is an Irish national living with his civil partner, Zaiden, a British national, for five years. Brandan wants to know whether Zaiden could move with him and whether Zaiden would be permitted to work in France. The main issue is that British citizens can only stay in the EU after Brexit for 90 days in 180 days. Brandon has the legal basis for his work and permanent residence in France, which is required after Brexit. In this case, Zaiden can live and work in France as a direct family member.
The Citizens’ Directive guarantees the right of Zaiden to work in France and to move with his civil partner. It is possible to illustrate it with article 2.2(b), which describes the type of relationship between Zaiden and Bradan as a registered partnership. France recognizes the documents about the civil partnership with Great Britain, which allows Zaiden to use all privileges as a family member of Brandan. This relationship has a similar legal status as marriage, which means that Zaiden can also work and reside in France with his partner. Applying article 23 from the directive to this case that describes related rights is also possible. This article supposes that the person with the right to permanent residence in the state that is a member of the EU can be self-employed or employed. Zaidan’s legal status in France allows him to stay as a permanent resident because he is a direct family member of Brandon. Therefore, he has the right to find work in this country.
The civil partnership between Brandon and Zaiden is acknowledged by French legislation. As a result, Zaiden is regarded as a family member of Brandon and his direct relative. The civil partnership status is equal to marriage, allowing Zaiden to receive permanent residency in France. According to article 23 from the directive, he can be employed in France. Brexit led to the situation that Brandon has to receive residency in France to live and work there, and Zaiden’s civil partnership is the legal reason to receive similar permissions.
Case 3
The question in this case study is about Cosme, a Portuguese citizen who had a short sentence for drug possession fifteen years ago. The woman asks whether she has the right to live in France, considering her story of possessing illegal drugs. It is possible to use Article 27 from the Citizen’s Directive to advise Cosme on her situation. According to the principles described in this article, previous convictions the individual had are not regarded as the legal basis for deciding whether they endanger the state’s public security. The personal behavior of the applicant for the residence is the only critical characteristic that determines their right to residence in the member state. Therefore, drug possession that happened fifteen years ago is neither the present threat nor the severe threat to France. In addition, Cosme’s relocation does not endanger national security of the country due to her exemplary conduct for many years. In this case, the time that passed from the conviction is vital because it shows that Cosme had no problems with the law since she was a student. It allows concluding that she has the right to live in France regardless of the country’s zero tolerance for illegal drugs.
Conclusion
The Citizens’ Directive is the primary document that describes the legal basis for the free movement of people between the member states of the EU. Even though there are certain restrictions for movement between states, the legislation is comparatively liberal regarding living and working in another country. This paper discusses three case studies that represent various aspects of European legislation concerning the movement of people.
Alicia’s case focuses on the rights of her direct ascending relative, who requires her care to move from Romania to France and receive medical help there. In this situation, Alicia has the right to take her elderly uncle with her, and he has the right to healthcare assistance in France. The second case interacts with the peculiarities of moving a British national to the European Union after Brexit and taking the civil partner with him. The discussion of this situation shows that the British national needs a legal basis for working in France after Brexit, but if he has the right to permanent residence, he can move there with his civil partner. Their relationship is recognized in France, which allows them to relocate as a couple. The third case about Cosme shows that the decision for residence in the member state is based on the person’s individual conduct, and the short imprisonment that happened fifteen years ago is not the reason to restrict her movement to France.
Bibliography
Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) [2004] OJ L 158/77
Cuyvers, A., “Freedom of Establishment and the Freedom to Provide Services in the EU”, In A. Cuyvers, E. Ugirashebuja, J. E. Ruhangisa, & T. Ottervanger (eds.), East African Community Law: Institutional, Substantive and Comparative EU Aspects, Brill, 2017, pp. 376–391.
Muir, E., “EU Citizenship, Access to “Social Benefits” and Third-Country National Family Members: Reflecting on the Relationship between Primary and Secondary Rights in Times of Brexit”, In E. Muir, N. Cambien, & D. Kochenov (eds.), European Citizenship under Stress: Social Justice, Brexit and Other Challenges, Brill, 2020, pp. 170–198.
Tiekstra, W., Free Movement Threatened by Terrorism: an Analysis of Measures Proposed to Improve EU Border Management. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2019.
Wintemute, R., “Universal Humanity vs National Citizenship: the Example of Same-sex Partner Immigration in Europe”, In R. C. M. Mole (ed.), Queer Migration and Asylum in Europe, UCL Press, 2021, pp. 13–26.