AEMI
AEMI-2016-web
AEMI-2016-web
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
166 <strong>AEMI</strong> JOURNAL 2015 2016<br />
have not been checked by the Belgian<br />
authorities. The Observatoire des politiques<br />
sociales en Europe even talked of<br />
a simply unjustifiable and unacceptable<br />
attitude from an ethical, political and<br />
legal point of view 21 . In February 2013,<br />
the European Commission informed<br />
Belgium about its concern concerning<br />
its practices against mobile Union citizens.<br />
Unfortunately, such practices are<br />
still going on. For these reasons, many<br />
well-known Belgian academics even recommended<br />
firmer actions against Belgium<br />
22 .<br />
The Netherlands has also used the<br />
ground of unreasonable burden to expel<br />
Union citizens. It indeed considers access<br />
to emergency housing to be an unreasonable<br />
burden on its social assistance<br />
system. This gives to the Dutch authorities<br />
the possibility to expel Union citizens<br />
that are homeless and in search of<br />
housing. The management of the poorest<br />
economically inactive Union citizens<br />
is also a question that has to be addressed<br />
in the future. Non-self-sufficient, both<br />
in their home country and in their host<br />
country, they have to rely on the generosity<br />
of their state of residence. Shall we<br />
consider the temporary use of shelters or<br />
emergency care as unreasonable burdens<br />
on the social assistance system or just as<br />
a hand to a person who is temporally<br />
unable to take care of herself? 23<br />
Some Member States go even further<br />
by mentioning as a legal ground<br />
for expulsion the non-self-sufficiency of<br />
mobile Union citizens, in contradiction<br />
with Article 27 which says that expulsion<br />
should not serve economic ends.<br />
France and Belgium expelled economically<br />
inactive Union citizens on the<br />
ground of non-self-sufficiency during<br />
the first three months of their stay without<br />
checking whether they were representing<br />
an unreasonable burden. This is<br />
an abuse of their expulsion powers because<br />
the only obligation for a stay up<br />
to 3 months is the possession of a valid<br />
ID or passport.<br />
II. Protection Against Expulsion<br />
Expulsion being the most serious sanction<br />
against mobile Union citizens, the<br />
Citizenship Directive very carefully regulates<br />
its use by Member States. Nevertheless,<br />
state practices show abuses of<br />
expulsion powers and lack of respect<br />
for the material and procedural safeguards<br />
inscribed in Directive 2004/38/<br />
EC. After a quick review of the existing<br />
system of protection of Union citizens<br />
against expulsion, some further steps<br />
aiming to limit such abuses will be proposed.<br />
A. Existing Protection<br />
Directive 2004/38/EC provides special<br />
protection against expulsion of mobile<br />
Union citizens through its general and<br />
procedural safeguards based on Articles<br />
27, 30 and 31 that can be used by both<br />
economically active and inactive mobile<br />
Union citizens. Union citizens are first<br />
protected by Article 27, which states<br />
that it should not serve economic ends<br />
and should be based on the personal<br />
conduct of the individual representing a<br />
genuine, present and sufficiently serious<br />
threat affecting one of the fundamental<br />
interests of society. Article 28 protects<br />
Union citizens against expulsion by requiring<br />
the host Member state to take<br />
into account considerations of integration,<br />
such as how long the individual<br />
concerned has resided in its territory,
Change language