free movement of persons in EU

The membership to the EU regarded that the national law of any EU Member State must be subject to the provisions of the EU law. This meant that Parliament could not just legislate any law they wish to anymore and was subject to being qualified under the EU law.

By the signing of the Treaty on European Union (TEU, formal for Maastricht Treaty) in 1992 and its entering into force in November 1993, the European Union was

The Union initially developed from the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty by the founding countries which was signed in Paris in 1951. It was created for the free movement of coal and steel among countries with the free access to sources of production. The Treaty expired on 23rd of July 2002 (Europa.eu, 2010). This Treaty was very successful as it created better relationships between member countries, which lead the countries to sign the Treaty of Rome on the 25th of March 1957. The Treaty of Rome

The development of a human rights policy in the EU has been a long and often undocumented journey. The sectoral approach of the Paris Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 had an economic and functional intention, lacking a declaration of fundamental rights, as seen in national constitutions. It was not until the 2000 Nice Summit that the European Union first established a written charter, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, explicitly stating and guaranteeing human rights in the European Union. Documented EU human rights policy before 2000 can be seen primarily in two ways:

Since 1950 European Union (EU) was created it has promoted peace, prosperity and values among the member nations and its neighbouring countries. EU’s influential tools, has helped transform many European states into functioning democracies and prosperous countries. EU’s membership has grown from 6 to 28 countries (Enlargement, 2014), satisfying a historic vow to integrate the continent bringing in most states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by peaceful ideals.EU has anticipated the enlargement as an extraordinary opportunity to endorse political strength and economic success in Europe. EU’s extension policy is open to any European state that fulfils the EU’s political and financial criteria for membership; still the political process of inclusion of new state requires a unanimous agreement from all the existing 28 member states. Europe is considered to be more flourishing and safer place due to the promotion of democracy, anti-corruption policy and the single market policy.

The issue of whether or not the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union has been debated heavily over the past decade, with the debate heating up even more from the current European Sovereign Debt Crisis. Recent polls of the UK population showed that around half of the UK’s citizens would vote to pull out of the EU if it went to referendum. However, after all of the economic, political, and social advantages of being a member of the EU are considered, it remains clear that leaving the EU is not in the UK’s best interest. Economically, it does not make sense for the UK

The migration crisis has reached a level where Europe must take a stand and must present a viable plan, expressing the future goals the European government believes will help solves this crisis. The International Organization for Migration said, between January and November 2015 more than 750,000 migrants are predicted to arrive in Europe from across the Mediterranean. As a union, Europe is showing the world that they are not a cohesive organization prepared to face the future with respects to the mass migration. The policy concerning migration at the European Union level states that each nation has the right to their own migration policies, while adhering to the European migration institutions, which are not fully established. So far, many of the migrants coming to Europe are settling in Italy and Greece; many hope to be able to reach Germany as their final destination.

Furthermore these democratic foundations were further “reinforced” with the conditionality’s of membership adopted at the Copenhagen Summit in June 1993, whereby democratic governance and human rights were included in its criteria for membership. Furthermore, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 formally established a Common Foreign and Security Policy which included objectives of which included the development and consolidation of democracy. The EU as Lucarelli argues hence became a strong instrument for the promotion and development of democracy in Europe and but especially in post-communist ones. This Furthermore, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 reaffirmed its strong democratic position through Article 6:

Later, as the European Economic Community changed into the European Community and more recently into the European Union (EU), it has become more and more common for all member states to legislate in order to give effect to employment laws which

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

This question concerns non-fiscal barriers to the free movement of goods in the European Union. Issues concerning Articles 34,35 or 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are raised and Brian’s potential claim is against France as the Member State who has enacted measures which may restrict imports and exports, thereby violating the Treaty.

On 25 March 2017, the European Union will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its existence. Nevertheless, the European Council and the presidents of the twenty seven member states are aware that it is not a perfect union.

In the aftermath of the 1957 Treaty , the European Economic Community (EEC) was established and customs barriers between the member states have been abolished. Member States throughout the Community, can “promote a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between them”. Therefore, in order for a common market to be established between Member States, the Community enacted some legislative provisions which aimed to a true harmonization of laws; incorporate different legal systems under a basic legal framework. The main issue arising is whether these legal provisions in accordance with the case law, ensured the free movement of goods within this market.

European Union represents economic and political partnership of 28 states, with population more than 500 million people who can travel within its territory without considering internal borders. It operates as a single market with standardized laws and guaranteed freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. As such, European Union is attractive destination for all kind of immigrants, from people in search of a better life from unfortunate and unstable regions to highly qualified work force who are looking for greater business opportunities. As European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in an interview for Time Magazine (Oct. 24,2007) “Europe is an

One of the main objectives of the European Union (EU) is the establishment of the internal market, which shall consist of “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. The internal market is based upon a customs union achieved through the abolition of the imposition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect and the prohibition of discriminatory taxes on intra-EU imports. The internal market is enhanced by the provisions on free movement of workers, freedom of establishment, free movement of services, and free movement of capital. Whereas Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide for the establishment of an EU common external tariff and the elimination of customs duties, Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (with exceptions under Article 36) go further, and prohibit quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. Taken together, Articles 28 to 32 and 34 to 36 serve to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU and to facilitate the operation of the internal market.