Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-08-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040308.9.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, the Treaty of Amsterdam gives every citizen of the Union a fundamental individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, regardless of whether or not he or she exercises an economic activity. This right is also enshrined in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
What this means, however, is that the Union’s citizens must be free to move between the various Member States, just as the nationals of one Member State move or change residence within their own territory. We all acknowledge, however, that there are still many barriers to exercising this fundamental right – a situation confirmed by numerous rulings of the Court of Justice on this matter. This is why it is crucial that this directive should be adopted as swiftly as possible, so as to simplify the exercise of the right to move freely.
I thus support the recommendation of the rapporteur, Giacomo Santini, whom I wish to congratulate on his excellent work, to adopt this position in its current form. It encompasses many of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament at first reading and is generally well balanced. Furthermore, any new amendment would mean reopening negotiations and would undermine the crucial need for this directive to be adopted, especially given the closeness of enlargement.
I should like to emphasise the major proposals, which I believe to be most important. The first of these is to reduce administrative formalities to the bare necessities; secondly, the right to move freely without the need for any formalities for a period of three months; thirdly, to introduce the permanent right of residence after four years of continuous residency in the reception Member State; fourthly, to impose limits on a State’s power to refuse or revoke the right of residence for a Union citizen on the grounds of security or public order; my fifth and last point concerns the definition of the concept of family, I would like to emphasise that harmonising residency requirements for Union citizens must never lead to changes being imposed on Member State legislation and on their own definitions of the family status. The Treaty excludes the right to live as a family from the sphere of Union competence, because this is a matter for national competence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples