Activities of Francesco Enrico SPERONI related to 2008/2184(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (5)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the significant negative impact on citizens’ rights of administrative practices which are not in conformity with Community law; draws attention, by way of example, to the proliferation of different ID cards and residence cards within the Member States, which has rendered the exercise by EU citizens of their right of free movement confusing and irksome; points out that, in Spain, in addition to the registration certificate, EU citizens are issued with a Foreigner Identity Number which is necessary in order to work or register with the Spanish social security system, that France has also maintained an ambiguous voluntary residence title additional to the registration certificate issued to Union citizens and that, in Member States such as the Czech Republic, Sweden and Belgium, authorities request additional documents in order to issue residence cards or impose conditions which are not listed in the Directive;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes, bearing in mind that there are specific requirements applying to stays exceeding three months and Community legislation does not lay down any formalities to be completed by EU citizens entering a Member State, that it might be advisable to introduce a system making it possible to ascertain the actual date of commencement of an EU citizen’s residence in a given Member State;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the transposition of the ‘sufficient resources’ principle within Member States gives rise to confusion among EU citizens as it is often ambiguously defined in the national legislation at all levels; points out that this gives rise to deep concern, for example in relation to Italian legislation which requires EU citizens to prove the authenticity of their sufficient resources;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the legal and administrative obstacles affecting third-country family members are extremely problematic; points out that, in breach of the Directive, UK legislation precludes a non-EU family member who has a residence card issued by another country from entering the country without a visa, and that UK administrative practices are such that lengthy delays and extensive documentation in the processing of applications for residence cards for family members who are third-country nationals also constitute significant obstacles to the exercise of free movement rights; draws attention to the fact that, in Estonia, third- country nationals face problems when attempting to enter the country with a residence card issued by another Member State, and that third-country family members applying for visas have been also asked to pay the visa fee; points out that, in Italy, a third-country national citizen who applies for family reunification will be required to show the lawfulness of the origin of his/her economic resources, the amount of which may not be lower than the yearly social allowance;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the public policy exceptions cannot be invoked to serve economic ends or to pursue general preventive aims; notes the absence in Estonian and Hungarian legislation of a clear reference to the exclusion of economic ends when imposing an expulsion order and, in Hungarian and Romanian legislation, of any reference to the exclusion of previous criminal convictions and general preventive aims.