Suchergebnisse

Since the expiry of the deadline for the completion of the internal market at the end of 1992, the Commission has shifted its focus away from piloting an intense rule-making burst through the Community legislative system. As part of its quest to establish reliable methods for managing the internal market, the Commission is now overtly concerned to improve the quality of those adopted laws, for example by securing simplification and consolidation, and it is intent on investigating more rigorously how a closer match may be made between the relevant laws on paper and their practical application on the ground.1 In short, the Commission is focusing its energies on ensuring that the legal framework which has been adopted is treated by commercial operators and consumers in the market as a viable and trustworthy basis for an integrated market. Accordingly much of the Commission's work since the last survey of the law relating to the free movement of goods has been at first sight relatively unglamorous. It largely concerns soft law initiatives and attempts to improve administrative co-ordination designed to underpin the practice of market management, both vertically (Commission/Member State) and horizontally (Member State/Member State). This forms the core of the strategy for the internal market covering the next five years, published on 24 November 1999.2 Nonetheless, even though these initiatives might not immediately strike the lawyer accustomed to a fountain of legislative activity as worthy of close inspection, it is clearly the case that the Commission regards its medium-term mission to stabilise the management of the internal market as best pursued by a gradual approach designed to improve practical compliance.

There is a generalised perception that the European Court of Justice has adopted different approaches to the different free movement rules included in the Treaties. In particular, the free movement of goods has 'benefited', until 1993, from a wider scope of application. Contrary to what has for long constituted the standard approach to the free movement of persons, the free movement of goods was constructed as requiring more than national treatment and non-discrimination in regard to goods from other Member States. Even non-discriminatory restrictions on trade in goods could constitute a violation of Community rules if not justified as necessary and proportional to the pursuit of a legitimate public interest. The freedom to provide services has somewhat occupied a middle ground between the interpretation given to the goods and persons provisions. Following the Court's decision in Keck & Mithouard in 1993, a reversal of fortune appears to have taken place regarding the Court's approach to the different free movement provisions, with the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services now benefiting from a more 'aggressive' interpretation in comparison with the free movement of goods.

Bu çalışmada "Kişilerin Serbest Dolaşımı" kavramının Avrupa Birliği hukukuna göre ne anlama geldiği ve bu yasal sürecin Türk vatandaşları açısında doğurduğu sonuçlar ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır.Tezin ilk bölümünde Avrupa Birligi Hukukunda kişilerin serbest dolaşımı hakkını ortaya çıkaran temel hukuki belgelere ve bu hakkın pratik uygulanması esnasında ortaya çıkan bazı sorunlara ve bu sorunlara Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanının uygun bulduğu çözümlere yer verilmiştir.İkinci bölümde ise Türkiye ve Avrupa Birligi arasında akdedilen ve hükümleri itibarı ile kişilerin serbest dolaşımı sonucu doğurması muhtemel olan Ankara Antlaşması ve Katma Protokol incelenmiş, özellikle Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde halihazırda yasal olarak çalışmakta bulunan vatandaşlarımızın haklarının iyileştirilmesine yönelik Ankara Antlaşması uyarınca kurulan Ortaklık Konseyinin aldığı kararlar üzerinde durulmuş ve bu kararlar temel alınarak Türk vatandaşları tarafından Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanınca karara bağlanmış davalara değinilmiştir.Tüm bu süreç genel olarak incelendiğinde Türkiye'nin Ankara Antlaşmasından ve Katma Protokolden kaynaklanan Türk vatandaşlarının serbest dolaşımı ile ilgili henüz gerçekleşmemiş hakları olsa da artık bu durumun iki taraf tarafından da göz ardı edildiği ve 1999 Helsinki Zirvesi sonuç bildirisi ile Türkiye'ye adaylık statüsü verilmesiyle birlikte ortaklık ilişkilerinin yeni bir boyut kazandığı, kişilerin serbest dolaşımı konusunda Avrupa Birliği'nin Türk vatandaşlarına tanıyacağı hakların artık Ankara Antlaşması ve Katma Protokol kaynaklı olmayacağı, adaylık sürecinde müzakere edilmek suretiyle ortaya çıkacağı anlaşılmış bulunmaktadır. This study will examine what "Free Movement of Workers" means within the European Union Law on one hand and what implications does this concept have on Turkish citizens on the other hand.The first part of this thesis will focus on the legal texts, which constitute the basis of this right and practical application by concentrating on the Cases and Conclusions of the European Court of Justice. In the second part the thesis is more about the situation of Turkish workers who pursues to exercise this right.The EC Treaty defines in Article 48 EC "freedom of movement for workers'' as entailing the abolition of any direct or indirect discrimination based on nationality in the case of access to employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. Article 48 provides that:1)"Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community by the end of the transitional period at the least.Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment."The application of "free movement right" is based on Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, which states in its preamble that "mobility of labor within the Community must be one of the means by which the worker is guaranteed the possibility of improving his living and working conditions and promoting his social advancement."Second part of the thesis deals with the implications of this right on Turkish Citizens. For the Turkish Citizens, the main legal basis of the freedom for the movement of workers is the Article 12 of the Ankara Treaty.Article 12 states that: "The Contracting Parties agree to be guided by Articles 48, 49 and 50 of the Treaty establishing the Community for the purpose of progressively securing freedom of movement for workers between them". Moreover Article 36 of the Additional Protocol states that "Freedom of movement for workers between Member States of the Community and Turkey shall be secured by progressive stages in accordance with the principles set out in Article 12 of the Agreement of Association between the end of the twelfth and the twenty-second year after the entry into force of that Agreement. The Council of Association shall decide on the rules necessary to that end". This study will further examine the practical application of these principles laid down by the Decisions of the Associaiton Council established by the Additional Protocol by concentrating of the Cases relating to Turkish Citizens. Last parts of the thesis focus on the recent and future situation in this respect.

1. From "Sunday trading" to Keck and MithouardThese Current Developments surveys have consistently been driven to consideration of the Court's attempts to fix the outer limits of Article 30 of the EC Treaty, beyond which national authorities remain exclusively competent to regulate their markets without fear of legal challenge based on Community rules governing the free movement of goods. The high-water mark of judicial interventionism came in the so-called "Sunday trading" cases where the United Kingdom was required to justify against standards recognised by Community law rules governing shop opening hours despite the fact that such rules, although inhibitive of commercial freedom, posed no demonstrable obstacle to the construction of an integrated marketing strategy for the whole territory of the Community.1 In Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard2 the Court sought to curtail the reach of Article 30. A French rule prohibiting resale at a loss was held unaffected by Article 30. The Court overruled previous decisions, probably including the pair dealing with Sunday trading, although the Court was not explicit. Its intention to refocus the law of the free movement of goods on measures hostile to market integration, rather than those merely oppressive of commercial freedom, was reflected in the formula:

As mentioned in the previous note1 the Amsterdam Treaty significantly alters the treaty structure as regards the free movement of persons. The EC treaty now has, as one of its formal activities as set out in article 3(1)(d), "measures concerning the entry and movement of persons as provided for in Title IV". The creation of a new Title IV in the EC Treaty on establishing an area of freedom, security and justice moves a corpus of subject matter2 from the inter-governmental pillar on Justice and Home Affairs to the Treaty of Rome. The aim clearly set out is to establish, within five years, all the measures necessary to create "an area without frontiers" in accordance with Article 143 together with "flanking measures with respect to external board of controls of asylum and immigration" as well as "measures to prevent and combat crime in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 (e) of the Treaty on European Union".4 Co-operation between the Member States is also to be strengthened and encouraged5 as well as measures in the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters though the latter is in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union.6

The Commission has spent time in 2003 celebrating the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the internal market. In this context the use of deadlines is misleading. The building of an internal market is more process than event. Many significant pieces of legislation entered into force at the end of 1992, but many pre-dated that moment and others again havebeen agreed subsequently. And the Court's interpretation of relevant provisions of the Treaty was not fossilised at the end 1992, but rather its dynamic evolution continues to exert influence over the process of market-building. The Commissionsperfectly well aware of this. It admits that the Internal Market will never be 'completed'.1The core mission is to promote and sustain improved economic performance, not to hit crude targets. Nonetheless dissemination of propaganda possessesbase appeal in all political systems and the Commission has taken the trouble to emphasise the gainsthat have accrued from the process of integration, while also devoting attention both to remaining gaps and strategies forplugging them. In making its case the Commission is confronted by the unavoidable absence of reliable data on what would have occurred had the internal market not been pursued in the chosen manner. Sector by sector, it is difficult to demarcateadvantages accruing from the '1992' initiative from those that would have occurred in any event or which are attributable to other factors such as global trade liberalisation. Moreover, the essence of the internal market programme is that benefits will be felt not only in the short term, but also in the long term, and accordingly, in line with Chairman Mao's reported refusal to assess the importance of the French Revolution on the basis that it was too soon to tell, measurement of the impact of the internal market project cannot yet be decisive. However, in its reportThe Internal Market—Ten Years without Frontiers the Commission insistedon demonstrably favourable macroeconomic consequences.2It highlighted price reductions and improved productivity. Its simulation results suggest that real Gross Domestic Product would have been 1.4 per cent lower in 2002 without the internal market programme. The level of employment would have been 0.86 per cent lower. Moreover further gains are expected of the former, though not the latter, type in future.

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its "post-1992" strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

The European Court's efforts to locate the outer limits of Article 30's control of national measures have been discussed before in these surveys of current developments in EC law.1 The Court was tempted to use Article 30 to catch a wide range of measures that affected trade even where the rules applied in an even-handed manner to all traders. The most notable example of this expansionist trend was found in the so-called Sunday trading cases, in which Article 30 was exploited to challenge rules restricting commercial activity in England and Wales even though the rules did not put cross-border strategies at any particular disadvantage. The Court pursued an erratic course before finally ruling the laws compatible with Article 30.2 Academic comment, though nuanced in its detailed appreciation of the Court's stance, was largely convinced that Article 30 had been extended beyond both its intent and necessary function in the process of market integration.3

Fundamental issues sometimes hide themselves behind what to an untrained eye might look like a technical and somewhat dry debate. Thus, a layman hearing Community lawyers' talk about the legal basis of legislation might be excused for not realising that the issue may be that of the role of the European Parliament in the European Union, and therefore the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions. The debate about the function of the concept of discrimination in the law on the free movement of goods, services and persons in the Community is one of those discussions which has more to offer than meets the eye. What the debate is really about is the balance of powers between the member States and the Community and the federal nature of the Community legal order as well as, incidentally, the balance between market principles and other values embodied in legislation. Translated by specialists in the free movement of goods in the Community, it has become, in the context of Article 30 of the Treaty: should we read a "rule of reason" within Article 30, or can Cassis de Dijon be explained in terms of indirect discrimination?

This article is concerned with the legal position of Community nationals who move to another Member State in search of employment. Section II will summarise the traditional legal status of the workseeker viewed as an economic factor of production. Section III will explore the new legal status of the workseeker viewed as a citizen of the European Union. Section IV will offer some brief comments on the Commission's 2001 proposal for an umbrella directive on free movement for Union citizens, and its implications for the migrant workseeker. It will be argued, through this analysis, that the institution of Union citizenship, so often criticised for its 'us and them' mentality in the treatment of third country nationals, is equally characterised by a 'haves and have-nots' approach to its own members—thus presenting a model which (albeit for perhaps understandable pragmatic reasons) is not necessarily in the best interests of maximising economic efficiency within the Common Market, places limits on certain of the political aspirations vested in the process of European integration, and questions the depth or at least the methodology of the Community's stated commitment to attaining high levels of social protection.