Report - Guardian

160 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005The Directive’s Derogations Do Not Appear to Permit Blanket RestrictionsThe Directive permits limited restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence ofEU citizens “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health” (Article27(1)). The Directive carefully limits the scope of these public policy and publicsecurity derogations, stating that measures taken must “comply with the principle ofproportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individualconcerned” (Article 27(2)). This is consistent with European case law, which hasinterpreted these derogations narrowly and introduced the notion of “proportionality”.Significantly, Article 27(2) provides:“The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent agenuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of thefundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated fromthe particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of generalprevention shall not be accepted.” (Article 27(2)) [emphasis added]Therefore, the Article 27 derogations can only be used on a case-by-case basis and notagainst an entire class of individuals, as these “shall not be accepted”. Thus, it wouldnot appear possible for the Government to rely on general claims of “public security”,for instance, to resolve any conflict between the Identity Cards Bill and the provisionsof the Directive. As a consequence, any blanket rule that would require all EU citizensresiding in the UK to become registered on the National Identity Register would appearto fall outside the scope of any applicable derogation permitted under Article 27 of theDirective.