Search results

Abstract
This article discusses legal migration in the EU, in particular labour migration. It addresses the following question: once migrant workers from non-EU countries have been admitted into the Union, should they be treated like workers from EU countries for purposes of free movement? The EU migration acquis is one of the most politically charged issues covered by the EU Treaties. As EU citizens, nationals of member states enjoy a set of free movement and political rights that can be exercised in other member states in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality affirmed in Article 18 TFEU. This principle is arguably not applicable to third-country nationals. Thus, member states are free to accord unequal treatment to third-country nationals as compared to privileged EU immigrants. The pressing question is whether it is desirable to maintain different levels of rights for third-country nationals who have been legally admitted and whose connection to the host member state does not otherwise differ from that of EU citizens who have exercised their mobility rights. To answer that question, this paper examines arguments for and against treating migrant workers from EU countries and non-EU countries equally for purposes of free movement. It will show how these arguments push in different directions depending on whether they concern the political, human, social, cultural or economic impact of such differential treatment. Our analysis strongly suggests that, on balance, there are convincing reasons for aligning the treatment of long-term resident migrant workers from non-EU countries with that of migrant workers from EU member states.

Servitudes (easements) traditionally include the right to use foreign property. Specific types of servitudes are servitudes in the public interest. These are set up either in favour of the state, municipalities or operators of utilities. These servitudes are subject to some specific rules. For example, servitude in the public interest is established to carry out an undertaking for the operation of economic activity, i.e. to pursue public interests. It is needed for the duration of the use of public infrastructure; therefore, Article 227 of SPZ, under which a servitude may only be established for a limited duration of not more than thirty years, is not suitable for these servitudes. Furthermore, these servitudes are not independently transferable; they are transferred together with the right to operate economic public infrastructure. The authors discuss in particular the specific legal nature of a servitude in the public interest.