EU laws article 19 on the rights of the citizen of a member state

The  constitution of the EU commission provides for the recognition of the rights of  citizens of member states and family members.  The commission adopted directives on the citizen rights of the EU to reside and freely move within the EU members.  This is meant to encourage the citizens of the EU to exercise their right of movement and also help reduce administrative formalities.  The directive of the commission, gave a better definition of the family members of the EU citizens and ultimately provide limits to scope of refusing entry and deportation of citizens.  The European Parliament and Council Directive Act of 2004 on the rights of citizens, provides that all Union citizens are entitled to enter any member state provided they have identification[1].  The act also provides that family members of the citizens are entitled to enjoy the same right equal to the citizens they accompany without regard to nationality the family members possess.

For citizens who want to stay in the visiting country for more than three months they are subject to certain conditions.  They must be engaged in an economic activity, have sufficient resources or be  students studying in the country and or are family to a member of the Union citizen.  The country can allow this to happen only if the citizen does not become a burden to the state.

Section 45 of free movement

This is one of the fundamental freedoms of the community law in the European Union.   This is the essential element that is depicted in the European citizenship.  Article 45 of the TFEU entails the right to look for a job, to work in any member state, the right to remain there and the right to equal treatment.  This is supposed to help the integration of the worker in the host country.  This law could be used in the case of Klaus, the commission in the application of this law requires that a worker need to remain in the country provided he/ she gets employed.  Since Klaus was employed in the country and his girlfriend, Helga.  They can argue in court that they have a right to stay in the country on the grounds of the TFEU provisions.  Furthermore, the worker is entitled to equal treatment like all the citizens.  They can refer the case to the labor unions to help them as they have a right.  Klaus and the girlfriend have a right to movement and deportation could be against this provision.  Just like in the case of Hoekstra v. Bestuur, the right to free movement overrides the national laws.

Article 18 of EU Law

This article talks of freedom from segregation based on nationality.  The facts are that Klaus and his girlfriend Helga are German national living and working in the UK.  The denial of a loan from the education department and the university raising the fee to be paid because Klaus in not a UK national amounts to discriminating against on the basis of nationality.  Helga is to be deported from the UK since the Klaus is being deported.  This is also a form of discrimination, something that the provision of article 18 goes against.  Thus the couple could seek defense on this ground and appeal the deportation direction.

Article20  and 21 of the treaty

This article states that every citizen is given a right to reside and move freely within the host country.  The facts of the case are that the UK government are denying Klaus the right to movement in any member state of the European union .  On the other hand the country would argue that they are justified to limit the freedom of movement or residence in some cases.    The EU states that the citizen can stay in the host country provided that citizen does not become a burden to the state[2].  Klaus is a German national he is entitled to a right of residence in the UK but since he wanted to get a loan, this right of residence is terminated.  Klaus had the right to engage in economic activity, the UK government in recognition of the EU union act gave him a chance to get employed as a plumber, an economic activity he pursued to sustain his livelihood.  The commissions mandate the host country to deport an individual of member state based on burden.  Due to  the fact that Klaus requested for a loan implies that he was starting to become a burden to the social services of the country.  This also implied that Klaus might not be able to provide for his social security and health insurance which increased the burden.

On Helga,  the law is very clear that family members of the person being deported should not be affected by the deportation of the individual being deported.  The commission provides in the act that a family member of the an individual should not be affected by deportation in case the citizen dies, gets deported, divorces or terminates the relation he holds with the person.  Since Helga is a girlfriend to Klaus and thus she is entitled to the rights of EU union regardless of her nationality as stated in the act.  Helga is thus not supposed to be deported and should seek legal action against the deportation.   She will argue on the grounds that the fact that Klaus is on the wrong side of the law does not affect her.  She was engaged in economic activities that was legal by law and the provisions of the EU commission.  Helga receiving benefits was a responsibility of the state towards her and she holds no offense thus she should seek legal action against the government to stop deporting her.

Common provision for the right and grounds for deportation section 19

The commission, however is not supposed to grant aid for studies or vocational training and loan provision to the citizens.  Family members on the other hand are entitled to get employed or be self employed irrespective of their nationality[3].

Union citizens can be expelled from the host country  on certain provisions which include public security concerns, public policy and public health.  Deportation should not be based on grounds of economic conditions.  The provision of the act goes on to state that deportation can only be done  on an individual basis and proportionality principle.

In the case of Klaus, the UK government is justified in deporting Klaus.  The EU commission directive is  clear and states that a citizen of the member states can reside ion the member states of the union and is entitled to freedom of movement and economic engagement.  But the provision also limits the extend to which the right of the citizens should be applied.  Klaus had a right to enroll as a student in the college.

Article 49 on freedom of establishment.

The loan application by Klaus was a sufficient reason to warrant deportation by the UK government.  It was a sufficient proof that resources were to be utilized to sustain Klaus which resulted to burden.

Furthermore section 19 of the commissions act provides that in the case that a resident citizen engaging in training or education activities, must show that they are able to raise funds to support their training [4].  They are supposed to show this by the use of statements or official documents to prove beyond doubt that they have sufficient resources to support themselves.  The fact that Klaus was not able to provide this document contravenes the provisions of the commissions act therefore giving no option for the government, but deport him.  This, according to the act, is a sufficient ground upon which a host country can order deportation.

On the other hand, the law provides that in the event of deportation, the host country is supposed to assess several factors before deciding to deport an individual.  The state has to consider the age, family situation and the period the individual has resided in the country.  An individual should not be deported immediately  but only in exceptional circumstances.  Thus Klaus can appeal the decision on grounds that he has lived in the country for a long time without any criminal record.

The LEA was justified in refusing to give Klaus a loan since the law does not provide for giving of loans to foreign student.  According to the UK laws , the LEA is not supposed to give student loans to non nationals.  But the provision states that EU nationals are supposed to be given student support provided they are living in the UK, provided they satisfy some certain conditions [5].  Therefore Klaus can appeal from the decision on grounds that he is an EU member nation and should be given student support on those grounds.  The support provided for in the student support program include tuition and even supplementary grants.

The education law in UK is different from that of the other EU member states that require foreign students to pay higher fees than nationals of the UK.  This means , that the college acted within law to increase the fees.  But the fees increase is unreasonable as it is more than double what the nationals are paying.  This can be as course of the argument for Klaus.  He can point out that the fees that he was charged was not reasonable or else he would have afforded the payment as he had projected in his savings.





[1] Peter, M. & Girija, K. Mentally disordered offenders who are born abroad: pathway of care through medium secure services, British Journal of Forensic Practice, 2010, p.


[2] Louise, E. encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora:origins . experience and culture. Reference Reviews,2oo7, p. 58

[3] Rosie, C.  Chapter 3 Gendered Work and Migration Regimes, in Ragnihild Aslaug Sollund. New York: Emarald Group Publishing Limited, 2012, p. 58

[4] Dita, V. and William, F.  Police cooperation in internal enforcementof immigration control: learning from international comparison. New York: Emarald Group Publishing Limited, 2009 p. 241

[5] Jenniffer, T.  PIUS XII and the Second World War. European Business Review, 2000, p. 284

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.