Traduction de «libre circulation puisqu’elles » (Français → Anglais) :

The report also referred to the major developments in the case law of the Court of Justice which, proceeding from the concept of Union citizenship, interprets the conditions laid down by these directives more flexibly and to the importance of the proclamation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union at Nice on 7 December 2000, which is vitally important to free movement rules since it codifies and gives a high profile to fundamental rights.

Otherwise, an EU citizen would be deterred from exercising their right to freedom of movement if they risked losing their status as workers in the host Member State.

The IGA Decision stands at the cross-roads of the external dimension (as it involves agreements with third countries) and of the internal market (as non-compliant provisions such as destination clauses have a negative impact on the free flow of energy products within the internal market).

Before the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austrian Administrative Court), Mrs Sayn-Wittgenstein claimed that the non-recognition of the effects of her adoption on her name amounts to an obstacle to her freedom of movement – since she would have to use different surnames in two Member States – and interference with the right to respect for family life – because of the alteration of the name she has used continuously for fifteen years.

The report also referred to the major developments in the case law of the Court of Justice which, proceeding from the concept of Union citizenship, interprets the conditions laid down by these directives more flexibly and to the importance of the proclamation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union at Nice on 7 December 2000, which is vitally important to free movement rules since it codifies and gives a high profile to fundamental rights.

The Commission does not accept the Swedish position and continues to take the view that the ban breaches the EC Treaty rules on the free movement of goods, since it imposes a disproportionate barrier to intra-EU trade, having regard to the public health objective that it is supposed to achieve.

The Court has not yet been called upon to pronounce on this specific point, but it has previously held that as there is no consensus among the Member States whether same sex partners can be assimilated to spouses of a traditional marriage, it should be concluded that same sex spouses do not yet have the same rights as traditional spouses for the purposes of Community law on the free movement of workers [47].However, it should be noted that if a Member State accords advantages to its own nationals who live as non-married couples, under ...[+++] the principle of equal treatment in social advantages (see section 2.4 above) the same advantages must be granted to migrant workers [48].

(10) Whereas, in the case of telecommunications services, there is already harmonisation at Community level or, in some cases, arrangements for mutual recognition, and whereas the existing Community legislation provides for adaptations to take account of technological developments and the supply of new services and, as a result, the majority of national regulations concerning telecommunications services will not be subject to notification under this Directive since they will come under the exemptions set out in Article 10(1) or Article 1 point 5 of Directive 98/34/EC; whereas, nevertheless, certain national provisions specifically aimed ...[+++] at matters which are not subject to Community legislation may affect the free movement of Information Society services and to that extent they must be notified;

The Court further held in confirmation of precedents set by it (judgements of 17.12.80 and 26.03.82) that the exception to freedom of movement laid down in Article 48(4) of the Treaty in respect of employment in the public service should be strictly interpreted for it constituted a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom of movement for workers.

The Court further held in confirmation of precedents set by it (judgements of 17.12.80 and 26.03.82) that the exception to freedom of movement laid down in Article 48(4) of the Treaty in respect of employment in the public service should be strictly interpreted for it constituted a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom of movement for workers.