Traduction de «expulsion decision » (Anglais → Français) :

removal [ deportation | expulsion | refoulement | refusal of entry | removal order | return decision | deportation(UNBIS) | refoulement(UNBIS) ]

enforce expulsion | enforce an expulsion order | execute expulsion

enforcement of expulsion | enforcement of an expulsion order | execution of an expulsion order

expulsion | expulsion order | administrative expulsion

expulsion-type arrester | expulsion type arrester | expulsion arrester

decision (EU) [ Commission Decision | Community decision | Council Decision | decision of the European Central Bank | decision of the European Council | decision of the European Parliament | European Council decision ]

definitive expulsion | expulsion

implementing decision [ Commission implementing decision | Council implementing decision ]

3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits, notably the fact of being a threat to public order or public security or of being an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system; expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the ho ...[+++]st Member State's social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 and Article 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and not on considerations of general prevention and the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36) and persons have to be given at least one month to leave;

3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits and that, specifically, expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the host Member State's social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 an ...[+++]d Article 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and on no account on considerations of general prevention (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36);

4. Notes that the expulsions have targeted Roma specifically as a community generically considered as a threat to public order and safety, or as a burden on the social assistance and carried out in an extremely short lapse of time under modalities that included public stigmatization and the use of force and intimidation; no precise individual and case-by-case evaluation can reasonably and properly be done in such conditions; material and procedural safeguards have not been applied and guaranteed; the condition of proportionality has been violated; the measures could have been taken for economic ends or for general prevention; the directive does not foresee any procedure allowing for the facilitated or voluntary return of EU citizens to ...[+++] the Member State of origin on the basis of an economic “compensation”, which would also be contrary to the spirit and letter of the Treaties, since freedom of movement is a fundamental right that cannot be alienated, bought or sold, and would create a discrimination between EU citizens; furthermore, according to Romanian authorities, none of those returned have ever committed a crime in France or in Romania, while French courts have ruled against authorities' expulsion decisions against Roma that were based on their being a "threat to public order";

3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits and that, specifically, expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 an ...[+++]d Article 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and on no account on considerations of general prevention (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36);