Suchergebnisse

The informal politics of distribution on the streets, of begging and of giving, makes visible the faults inherent in European welfare systems, writes Cecilia Parsberg. And the rules and statutes that aim to prevent poverty-stricken EU citizens from enjoying free movement add insult to injury. ; First published in Glänta 1/2014 (Swedish version), med titeln "Giveriet i den fria rörlighetens Europa". ; How Do You become a Successful Beggar in Sweden?

The informal politics of distribution on the streets, of begging and of giving, makes visible the faults inherent in European welfare systems, writes Cecilia Parsberg. And the rules and statutes that aim to prevent poverty-stricken EU citizens from enjoying free movement add insult to injury. ; First published in Glänta 1/2014 (Swedish version), med titeln "Giveriet i den fria rörlighetens Europa". ; How Do You become a Successful Beggar in Sweden?

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.

The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. ; The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.

This article argues that debate on Bill C-31 should, in fact, focus upon the fact that it is impossible to determine the veracity of refugee claims using current methods of adjudication, that Canadian refugee and immigration legislation is incompatible with the international conventions, declarations, and norms upon which it is said to be based, and the absurdity of restricting the free movement of peoples. Arguing that the immigration and refugee system already favours free movement for the rich and the well-connected, and that the proposed legislation will further punish those who already suffer greatly from current restrictions, the author suggests that Canada should work to assist those who desire to move by eliminating obstacles such as third-country clauses, visa restrictions, and prohibitively priced airline tickets, and that rather than penalize those who assist in people's natural desire to move around, Canadian officials should help find ways to encourage the movement of peoples on whatever grounds they themselves think appropriate. ; Cet article maintient que le débat autour du projet de loi C-31 devrait en fait être dirigé sur les questions suivantes : l'impossibilité de déterminer la véracité des demandes d'asile en utilisant les méthodes actuelles de détermination, l'incompatibilité qui existe entre, d'une part, la loi canadienne sur l'immigration et le droit d'asile et, de l'autre, les Conventions, Déclarations et normes internationales sur lesquelles elle est sensée être basée, et, par ailleurs, l'absurdité d'essayer de limiter la libre circulation des peuples. Arguant que le système de l'immigration et du droit d'asile favorise déjà la libre circulation des gens riches ayant de bonnes relations, et que la nouvelle législation va punir encore plus ceux qui souffrent déjà beaucoup sous les restrictions existantes, l'auteur suggère que le Canada devrait travailler à aider ceux qui désirent se déplacer en éliminant les obstacles tels que les clauses des pays tiers, les restrictions sur les visas et ...

The year 2013 was officially declared the European Year of Citizens (EYC) in the European Union (EU). Through this event, the European Commission (EC) reiterates a 'virtuous circle' – between citizenship, free movement and a sense of belonging – able to bring citizens closer to the EU. This article shows how this 'virtuous circle' tends to translate into a 'tunnel vision' that reduces citizenship to free movement. Through the analysis of EC discourses, of the literature on 'movers' and 'stayers', and of focus groups with young people from Brussels, we suggest to expand the understanding of free movement and its effects. Overall, this article proposes to re-evaluate the scope of the 'virtuous circle' by considering that the 'stayers' are also EU citizens, that free movement is not indisputably an attractive right, and that the movers do not unquestionably feel attached to the EU as a result of their mobility.

The year 2013 was officially declared the European Year of Citizens (EYC) in the European Union (EU). Through this event, the European Commission (EC) reiterates a 'virtuous circle' – between citizenship, free movement and a sense of belonging – able to bring citizens closer to the EU. This article shows how this 'virtuous circle' tends to translate into a 'tunnel vision' that reduces citizenship to free movement. Through the analysis of EC discourses, of the literature on 'movers' and 'stayers', and of focus groups with young people from Brussels, we suggest to expand the understanding of free movement and its effects. Overall, this article proposes to re-evaluate the scope of the 'virtuous circle' by considering that the 'stayers' are also EU citizens, that free movement is not indisputably an attractive right, and that the movers do not unquestionably feel attached to the EU as a result of their mobility.

The year 2013 was officially declared the European Year of Citizens (EYC) in the European Union (EU). Through this event, the European Commission (EC) reiterates a 'virtuous circle' – between citizenship, free movement and a sense of belonging – able to bring citizens closer to the EU. This article shows how this 'virtuous circle' tends to translate into a 'tunnel vision' that reduces citizenship to free movement. Through the analysis of EC discourses, of the literature on 'movers' and 'stayers', and of focus groups with young people from Brussels, we suggest to expand the understanding of free movement and its effects. Overall, this article proposes to re-evaluate the scope of the 'virtuous circle' by considering that the 'stayers' are also EU citizens, that free movement is not indisputably an attractive right, and that the movers do not unquestionably feel attached to the EU as a result of their mobility.

Common political, economic, social and security interests of some countries on the European continent led to the creation of the European Union, which although is not state or suprastate, is an organization formed by a group of independent European states. Among the major ambitions pursued by citizens of States which joined the European Union, and that of the movement in the European space, for finding a job or tourism purposes, without limitations or restrictions, such as citizenship, nationality, except those related to the compliance with EU Directives under all aspects, including the security ones. Keywords: European Union, The Schengen area, Free movement, Employment, Public order.

Free movement has been at the heart of the Brexit debate, with the government grappling between satisfying public and business demands for restrictive and liberal approaches to immigration respectively. In response the government have advocated temporary migration as a potential solution, including an expanded UK-EU Youth Mobility Scheme (YMS) modelled on the current T5 YMS on the assumption that YMS migrants undertake low-skilled jobs. Little is known about this visa or the labour market activity of YMS migrants. Drawing on policy analysis alongside survey and interview data from Australian YMS migrants, this paper seeks to bridge some of these knowledge gaps, arguing that an expanded EU YMS will not attract significant EU migrants, and is far from a remedy for free movement ending.

ÖZET Türkiye'nin Ankara anlaşması ile başlayan Avrupa Birliği ilişkisi gümrük birliği süreci ile gelişmiş ve son olarak aday ülke statüsünün tanınması ile devam etmektedir. Türkiye'nin gelecekte Topluluğa üye devletlerden biri olacağından kendi hukuk sistemini ve mevzuatını Topluluk mevzuatını uyarlaması gerekmektedir. Yazar bu aşamada Avukatların hukuki durumunu Topluluk mevzuatı açısından ele almış ve Avukatlık kanunu açısından gerekli olan uyarlamaları tesbit ederek avukatların Birlik içindeki hakları incelenmiştir. Tezin içeriği üç bölümden oluşmaktadır.İlk kısım genel olarak Avrupa Birliği hakkında bilgi içermektedir .İkinci kısım en detaylı ve kapsamlı kısmı olup yerleşme serbestisi, hizmet sunma serbestisi tüzük , yönerge ve mahkeme kararları ışığında incelenmiştir.Tezdeki en büyük tartışmayı avukatların kullandığı ünvanların ülkeden ülkeye değişmesinin yarattığı mesele oluşturmuştur. 98/5 Tüzüğü uyarınca hizmetlerin serbest dolaşımından yararlanan avukatlar kendi ülkelerinde kullandığı ünvanlarını mesleklerini icra ettikleri veya edecekleri diğer üye devletlerde de kullanmak zorundadır.Bu da haklı olarak hizmetlerin serbest dolaşımına gölge düşürmektedir. Üye devletler de avukatlık yapabilmek için yeterlilik sınavını başarıyla almak gerekmektdir.Danimarka haricinde her üye devlet sınav koşulunu getirmiştir. Kanaatimizce bu sınavı başarıyla almış olan kimsenin o ülkenin avukatları ile aynı ünvanı kullanabilmesi gerekmektedir.Tezimiz de gelecekte Türk avukatların da bu s erbestiden yararlanabilmeleri için hukuk fakültelerindeki eğitimin çağdaş gelişmeleri takip eder düzeye getirilmesi ve en az bir yabancı dil öğretilmesinin de gerekliliği savunulmuştur. Son bölümde halen taslak halinde olan yeni avukatlık yasası da dikkate alınarak Birlik Tüzüklerindeki düzenlemeler ile avukatlık kanunu ve tasarısındaki hükümler kıyaslanmış ve Birliğe girince yapılması gerekli değişiklikler sıralanmıştır. SUMMARY According to my conviction lawyers are playing an important role in harmonization of EC legislation so by providing freedom to lawyers for their profession , adaptation and effective use of provisions will be sustained. Although it is accepted as a freedom still Member States wants to practice in a limited extent. The study will be composed of three sections.The first part is composed of the general concept of European Union. According to my conviction,general information must be given briefly before mentioning main section because we can not expect to obtain knowledge on European Union from ordinary readers.The second section will define right of establishment , recognition of diplomas awarded in Member States and free movement of services this section will be solely focused on free movement of lawyers. And finally the last section will discuss the differences and make comparisons on rights of lawyers in our and EU legal system.As a future candidate country we must be concerned with the approximization of our legislation to acquis communataire so the legal amendments which is required in case of being a Member State will be examined from the point of view of practising the profession of advocacy. The Conclusion is composed of our ideas both for eliminating restrictions on practising the profession and for amendments in order to approximate our legal system to European Union legislation. In this study we determined that some restrictions for lawyers still exists. Member States , except Denmark , prefers aptitude test instead of requiring professional training. The first barrier is applying aptitude test in order to act as a lawyer but this test is highly difficult because it requires every legal subject and to dispose fluent speaking of that language. Another barrier is found in using the title .The lawyer who has taken aptitude test must practice under the home country professional title in the host Member State.

Free movement of capital and payments is one of four fundamental principles, whose undisturbed operation is vital for proper functioning of the Common Market. In the first stage of the European Community, this freedom served a rather ancillary function, facilitating the full use of the freedom of movement of goods, people and services. It was as late as at the beginning of the 1990s that this principle was considerably liberalized. The treaty regulations concerning free movement of capital and payments changed. These regulations obtained the status of direct effectiveness, which means that natural and legal persons may invoke them in courts and domestic institutions. However, the most essential role in forming the principle of free movement of capital and payments was played by European Court of Justice, whose judgments contributed to its present shape and allowed practically full liberalization of free movement of cash. The aim of this article is to show the evolution of the free movement of capital and payments flow under the influence of changing treaty regulations and the judgments of European Court of Justice.

Die Frage, ob Privatpersonen unmittelbar an die Europäischen Grundfreiheiten gebunden sind, die Frage also ob diese Bestimmungen unmittelbare Drittwirkung entfalten, wurde in den letzten Jahren intensiv und kontroversiell diskutiert. Der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (EuGH) sprach in dieser Hinsicht der Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit (Art 45 AEUV), der Niederlassungsfreiheit (Art 49 AEUV) und der Dienstleistungsfreiheit (Art 56 AEUV) unmittelbare Drittwirkung zu. Im Gegensatz dazu lehnte der EuGH die unmittelbare Drittwirkung der Warenverkehrsfreiheit (Art 34 AEUV) ab, ohne diese unterschiedliche Behandlung zu rechtfertigen oder näher zu erläutern.Diese Arbeit will einen Beitrag dazu leisten, den differenzierenden Ansatz des EuGH zu beleuchten und der Frage nachzugehen, welche Rolle das Konzept der unmittelbaren Drittwirkung im Rahmen der Warenverkehrsfreiheit einnimmt, einnehmen kann bzw. soll.In dieser Arbeit wird die Auffassung vertreten, dass auch der Warenverkehrsfreiheit unmittelbare Drittwirkung zuzuerkennen ist. Zum Einen wird dies durch das Erfordernis eines kohärenten Systems der Grundfreiheiten begründet und durch eine Untersuchung des Wesens und der Systematik der Grundfreiheiten und der Judikatur des EuGH zur unmittelbaren Drittwirkung untermauert. Zum Anderen wird die Forderung der Warenverkehrsfreiheit unmittelbare Drittwirkung zuzuerkennen durch eine eingehende Interpretation des einschlägigen Primärrechts gerechtfertigt. Es wird gezeigt, dass das Konzept der unmittelbaren Drittwirkung, wenn dieses in differenzierter und ausgewogener Weise im Bereich der Warenverkehrsfreiheit angewandt wird, eine notwendige und sinnvolle Weiterentwicklung dieser Grundfreiheit darstellt, die es insbesondere ermöglicht auf Entwicklungen wie der Verschiebung von Regelungsbefugnissen vom Staat zu ?Privat? adäquat zu reagieren. ; The question whether and to what extent private actors are directly bound by the provisions on free movement of the EU Treaties, or in other words the topic of horizontal direct effect, has in the last years been subject to intensive and controversial academic debate. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has in this regard developed a line of jurisprudence where it has attributed horizontal direct effect to the free movement of workers (Art 45 TFEU), the freedom of establishment (Art 49 TFEU) and the free movement of services (Art 56 TFEU). In sharp contrast, the CJEU has rejected to apply the free movement of goods (Art 34 TFEU) horizontally directly to the conduct of private actors, not explaining the reasons for this different approach. This thesis wants to contribute to understanding the CJEU?s differentiating approach and to answering the question what role horizontal direct effect does play, can play and should play in the free movement of goods. In this thesis it is argued that there are compelling arguments for attributing Art 34 TFEU horizontal direct effect: There is on the one hand the claim for a coherent approach to horizontal direct effect in free movement law, a claim based on an analysis of the nature of the fundamental freedoms and the Court?s case-law on horizontal direct effect, which shows that there are no legal reasons to exclude Art 34 TFEU from its attribution. On the other hand the substantiation of horizontal direct effect of the free movement of goods is derived from EU law, building on and around an effet utile argument as its cornerstone. It is submitted that the concept of horizontal direct effect properly tailored, paying due regard to its limits, is a logical and necessary further development of the free movement of goods, reflecting challenges that arise from changes in the regulatory division of powers between the public and the private sphere, responding to a changed and changing social and legal reality. ; von Christoph Krenn ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung der Verfasserin/des Verfassers ; Graz, Univ., Dipl.-Arb., 2011 ; (VLID)212878

In this contribution a non-exhaustive overview is provided of several aspects of free movement of workers in the EU. The author has been (and is) involved in several research projects on the posting of workers, the coordination of social security and workers rights in a cross-border context; this article is part of work in progress. It starts with an overview of the different relevant aspects of workers rights and provisions in three policy fields (social security, working conditions, labour and contract law). In the following sections these policy fields are briefly sketched out. In the last section some of the pending problems are listed.

In this article we examine the notion of 'harmonisation' in its interplay with the application of provisions on the free movement of goods. Due to the introduction of the European unitary patent protection system, we are witnessing the first cases of adopting enhanced cooperation in the internal market. This fact raises new, systemic questions concerning the concept of 'harmonisation' in European Union law. Are only legal, substantive aspects covered by its definition or should the territorial range of a legal act be taken into account? If yes – to what extent? Since the adoption of enhanced cooperation covers the field of intellectual property rights, the above questions concern the relationship between exercising those rights on the one hand and the principle of free movement on the other. A closer look at this matter leads to the conclusion that the unitary patent might not provide the solution to one of the problems that created for. More generally, in this article we conclude that when defining the concept of 'harmonisation', one should take its territorial scope into account narrowly, so as not to infringe the principles of EU law.