AEMI

SOLANGE MASLOWSKI
167
his/her age, state of health, family and
economic situations, social and cultural
integration and the extent of his/her link
with the country of origin. The more integrated
the Union citizen is in the host
Member state, the higher protection
against expulsion he will receive. Just
a few legal grounds for expulsion can
be used against a long-term, integrated
mobile Union citizen. Indeed only serious
grounds of public policy 24 might be
used against Union citizens who have the
right of permanent residence and only
imperative grounds of public security 25
may be used against Union citizens who
have resided in the host Member state
for the previous ten years. Similarly, minors
are especially protected against expulsion,
which is only possible if based
on imperative grounds of public security
or if necessary for the best interests
of the child according to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 20 November 1989.
Moreover, mobile Union citizens are
also protected by the proportionality
principle (Article 27-2), which plays a
significant role for economically inactive
Union citizens because it frames the
intended distinction between a “reasonable”
and “unreasonable” burden 26 , the
latter leading to an expulsion. Likewise,
prohibiting a Member state from basing
an expulsion order on purely economic
ends should prevent economically inactive
Union citizens from being expelled
only on the ground of not being self-sufficient.
Article 30 of Directive 2004/38/EC
requires the notification in writing of
expulsions orders, which clearly and
fully states the content and the implications
of such decisions as well as the details
for appeal. Article 31 on procedural
safeguards guarantees to mobile Union
citizens the right to judicial or administrative
redress.
Besides these general safeguards available
for all mobile Union citizens, the
Citizenship Directive also regulates the
particular protection of certain categories
of economically inactive Union citizens.
Two main categories of persons are
supposed to be protected, despite some
Member States specifically targeting
them with expulsion orders:
- Those who have recourse to social
assistance are protected against automatic
expulsion orders (article 14-3).
- Those who have entered the
territory of the host Member state to
seek employment. They should not be
expelled as long as they can provide evidence
that they are continuing to seek
employment and that they have a genuine
chance to be engaged (article 14-
4b).
This protection is nevertheless insufficient
because of certain Member States’
abuse of their expulsion powers. For this
reason, some important steps should be
undertaken to better protect economically
inactive mobile Union citizens.
The first step should obviously be a better
definition of legal grounds leading
to expulsion, the second step being the
exceptionality of the use of the expulsion
sanction, and the last step being a
European-level approach to the rights of
movement and residence of economically
inactive Union citizens.
B. Challenges
Economically inactive Union citizens
are not protected enough against expulsion,
despite the existing safeguards.