Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.1.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent report and confirm that the Commission will be able to incorporate the vast majority of the proposed amendments into our amended proposal, which we will present shortly.
Let me turn to the two controversial issues during this debate. First of all, concerning Article 2 and the concept of family, one has to recognise that harmonising the conditions of residence for European Union citizens must not result in our imposing modifications on Member State legislation defining family status. I understand this debate and the difficulty of, on the one hand, ensuring compatibility with Article 13 of the Treaty, which is the legal basis for combating discrimination, including discrimination against unmarried couples or same sex couples when, on the other hand, the Treaty excludes Family law from the scope of competences of the European Union. In this very sensitive field, the Community must respect the developments introduced in Member State legislation and must be flexible in this. There is no universal legal solution for this kind of
partnership or for registered partnerships or same sex marriages.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we should not exaggerate the extent of the practical difficulties that unmarried couples or same-sex couples encounter in exercising the right of residence. In fact, when the two people are citizens of the European Union, they both enjoy the right of residence by virtue of Article 18 of the Treaty, independently of the nature of their relationship. However, I recognise that the problem arises when one of them is a third-country national. For the time being, the Commission's proposal is to define marriage with reference to the term 'spouse', and we do not seek to define this term. In fact, at present, the legislation of only two Member States recognises union between persons of the same sex as marriage.
Under the case law of the Court of Justice, the term 'marriage' designates a union between persons of the opposite sex. The Commission prefers, at the present stage, to follow the case law of the Court of Justice, and to use a formula that allows progressive interpretation of this concept on the basis of future developments in the legislation of Member States.
As regards unmarried partners, including registered partners, the Commission also considers that the recognition of these situations will have to be made by reference to the host Member State legislation. I understand the argument of mutual recognition, but one has to be very careful when using it. The recognition for the purpose of residence of unmarried partners on the basis of the legislation of Member States of origin could pose problems to those Member States whose family legislation does not recognise these possibilities. In addition, the principle of non-discrimination requires that the host Member State treat unmarried couples of other Member States in the same way as its own nationals. I believe therefore that everyone will agree, particularly in this field, that we should not create reverse discrimination. That would be the actual outcome of such a proposal.
I will follow your deliberations tomorrow and the negotiations with Council very closely. I am sure that all of you are aware of the difficulty of this debate and the different approaches of the Member States.
The rapporteur has suggested an amendment to Article 21 concerning equal treatment which aims to exclude inactive people from social assistance during the first six months rather, than the first four years of residence, until they acquire permanent rights of residence, as provided for in the Commission's proposals. I am aware that the Commission's text needs to be adapted in the light of the recent judgment of the Court of Justice in this field, which stated that any citizen residing legally in another Member State must enjoy equal treatment with its nationals in matters of social welfare. However, despite the fact that Mr Santini's amendment goes in the right direction, it is not possible to accept it in its current formulation as it is not completely in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice to which I have just referred. The Commission considers it preferable to reconsider the proposal and to better scrutinise the content of the Court of Justice judgment. We will bring forward an amended proposal as soon as possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples