Essay Sample on Free Movements of Persons

Introduction

Sandra, A Belgian immigrant to London, is profoundly affected by EU laws concerning migration. Her current status relates to how the EU regulates the rights of people regarding public policy. Sandra is from Belgium meaning is an EU national. This means that some of the laws enacted by the union will affect how she works in London. Being part of a London based netball team means that Sandra has moved to a member state of the EU. In this manner, a lot of what she does in London is controlled by policies and laws that have been set aside by the EU. In her case, the EU finds out whether she has sufficient resources for themselves and their families in the member state and makes sure she does not become a burden to the social assistance system. For example, the EU makes sure that during the time of residence, Sandra had enough health insurance to manage sicknesses and hospital expenses. Being enrolled at a private establishment in the member state, that is, tooting, she is affected by legislative and administrative practice for the period that she intends to work in London. For her work restrictions, the EU makes sure that she does not get too involved with the operations of the team by providing policies regarding her association with her activities in the team. These policies define methods with which the EU reduce competition in the team. EU law states that she would retain the status of a worker if she is duly recorded as being involuntarily unemployed for the first twelve months of living in the EU member state. Being disallowed to play for the rest of the season means that her right to participate in the sports have been lawfully denied. Arguably, she has the right to play for what team she has chosen or be chosen for in any EU member state. This right is however regulated that in season transfers affect the general balance of competition in the teams.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

For this reason, Sandra's future fielding are denied. The EU has made sure such situations are handled through the provision of policies under Dir 2005/36 that make sure the professional is recognized for her skills and her contribution to the general progress of her workplace. For Sandra, she has no choice but to comply with the decisions since she is involved in more than one institution at a particular time.

Charlotte from Sweden is married to Luis from Colombia. They have a family together in London, and Charlotte plays for tooting, a netball team that pays her PS1,500 per match. Charlotte is from a country that is a member state of the EU while her Husband is not. The EU has set up laws that guide the way that such situations are perceived in the EU member states. Since Charlotte, an EU national has moved to another member state, England; she is under legislative practices that are provided by the EU. Charlotte is a worker since she is paid for her work in playing for tooting in the European Masters league. Charlotte's family members are affiliated to legislative practices that are defined by the EU. The spouse is a partner with whom the Eu national has registered a partnership under the law. This spouse is allowed free movement by affiliation to a relative that is a member of an EU state. In this case, Luis, the husband to Charlotte is a beneficiary of the marriage and is only covered under the registered partnerships with the EU member state. The direct descendants of the partnerships are also beneficiaries of the free movement laws. Children or grandchildren that are aged under 21 or above 21 who are still dependant on any EU national are considered as family members. The child can be an EU national or not an EU national. For the case of Charlotte, her child who is a Columbian national is still considered a family member. In this case, the child from her previous marriage is still a part of the family hence a beneficiary to all EU laws. Under the Directive 2004/38/EC, the EU maintains the unity of the family in broader perspectives to prohibit discrimination that arises from nationality. Any other family member not falling under the directive is therefore considered part of the family hence would be allowed free movement by article 45 and Directive 2004/38. Charlotte's Swedish brother is part of the EU nationality membership thus most of the laws here are the same for his case.

Charlotte is allowed several rights to entry and residence. For instance, these people may be expelled if they were a danger to public policy, public health or public security. At the same time, they are protected against expulsion regarding the amount of time they have spent in the EU member state. Additionally, the host member state may consider holding expulsion if the family had secured permanent residence unless the threat to public security is severe. In general, all of these restrictions and allowances should be made to meet economic ends. Under no circumstances should any decision be related to any economic grounds. For Charlotte, recognition for her professional contribution to her netball team is a considerable factor. According to article 45(3), their rights to, and subject to limitations are justified on their association with public policy, public health or public security.

Bjarne, an 11-year-old with learning abilities is assisted by Charlotte to secure a position in a particular education school. Bjarne is the brother to Charlotte, and they are from Sweden. Since the family has not spent more than six years in London, Bjarne is denied a chance by the local authority. Charlotte has filed an appeal at the education support council for this matter. According to EU law, any discrimination that is related to sex, color, ethnic origin, genetic features, religion, language or belief is defined in article 21 as non-discriminatory. What this means, is that such factors should be considered when deciding about anyone affiliated to EU member states. In this manner, the filed complaint by Charlotte should be a review on the grounds of looking for areas where the council had gone wrong regarding administering justice to the child. About free movement, EU laws state that persons with intellectual disability or impairment who needs some service made available to them should be given the amount of attention required so he or she can be helped entirely. To accept reservation for a flight or service in any EU member state, the person should meet the requirements that are provided by EU law. Various derogations, special conditions, and information are provided by article 4 in EU laws. To accept any terms relating to disability, involved parties should make sure that the person meets the provided safety policies and requirements for the international community in the European Union.

For the case of Bjarnes, the fact that he is denied a chance to a school for his inability to reach a specific requirement should be reconsidered. In this case, the EU has made sure that public facilities such as schools provide the requirements for which applicants should reach. These requirements are made public hence people should access them at any point any time. For free movement and usage of public amenities, the EU has made sure that all employees in those facilities have the relevant training to work with people with several kinds of disability hence increased flexibility of the services that are provided by the workers in EU members states. Bjarnes being an EU national by family ties, he is entitled to have such amenities available to him. Being a person living with a disability, the EU should make sure that such people are allowed opportunities for them to fully utilize resources that are availed to them. For the best practice, the education council should broadly analyze the matter and make sure that all of the parties are satisfied at the end of the appeal. Bjarnes being only a boy seeking education, the council should make sure that he is educated.

Maria is the daughter to Louis and is Columbian. She is denied a place at the university since she has not stayed in the UK for five years. She is an EU national due to her ties to Charlotte. Her time of residence in the UK is a dynamic that is important to the EU. According to EU law, her right to free movement and usage of various facilities in the UK is defined by her ability to work in the environment. Students and economically inactive EU nationals must have enough resources so that they do not become a burden to social assistance in the country that they reside. The notion of sufficient resource requires that the EU does an investigation to understand the number of resources that a person possess at a particular time. This means that individuals seeking to apply for opportunities in any EU member states should be able to take care of themselves together with their families. For Maria, her application required that she had enough residence time to ensure that she maintained a good enough time in the UK hence would be able to take care of herself and her family. An individual's sufficiency in resources is assessed in three main ways according to EU law. One of these ways is to evaluate the amount of time that a person has spent in any member states. The person's situation together with their affiliation to grants is assessed. For Maria, her right to free movement was stopped due to her failure to meet the time requirements about associations with the UK. For the EU to properly deal with such cases, it has set has set up policy definitions that make sure people that are eligible for opportunities are allowed a position at the desired amenity.

The requirements for entry or residence in the UK will significantly depend on the person's status. For Maria, she is a family member of a recognized professional in the UK, her rights to entry and residence depends on her current status and ability to meet the requirements set. She is applying for a maintenance grant. This means that she would first need to get accepted in the University for her Grant to pull through. Under article 45(3) there are not derogations relating to this situation hence a lot of efforts should put be to defined ways in which her current state could be changed.

Louis, the husband to Charlotte, was involved in a fight during a tooting Christmas party. The fight was due to some arguments between Luis and one of the coaches. Luis was struck and arrested. Luis is an EU national by his ties to Charlotte. Luis is therefore considered a family member to Charlotte hence is granted access to some of the facilities in the EU. The Framework decisions 2001/500/JHA requires the EU member states allow for confiscation of instrumentalities and make efforts to restrict free movement for anyone who has been found to be guilty of any crime. For the case, Luis, his right to free movement is at stake since the UK government is allowed to restrict his movement and even exclude him from the country. Subject to a final conviction for an offense, some of his property may be confiscated, and he would later be deported according to EU law. In article 27 of the Directive 2004/38, the right to free movement of families regardless of their nationality will depend on their conduct and relations with other people in different places in the country. According to EU law, this individual is required to make efforts and ensure that the case is provided enough evidence to help him defend his residence. In this case, Luis's conduct was one that had a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the main interests of the society. In this case, Luis was a hindrance to the general peace at the party. This means that his case would be tough to win considering his status regarding the way that his nationality was acquired.

According to EU laws, the expulsion of a person involved in some level of crime will need close investigation in the amount of time that was spent in the member state and the type of residence that...