Sentences with phrase «grounds of public security»

(4) A relevant decision may not be taken except on imperative grounds of public security in respect of an EEA national who: (a) has resided in the UK for a continuous period of at least 10 years before the relevant decision; or... (5) Where a relevant decision is taken on grounds of public policy or public security it shall, in addition to complying with the preceding paragraphs of this regulation, be taken in accordance with the following principles --(a) the decision must comply with the principle of proportionality; (b) the decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned; (c) the personal conduct of the person concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; (d) matters isolated from the particulars of the case or which relate to considerations of general prevention do not justify the decision; and (e) a person's previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision.

The threshold criterion of «imperative grounds of public security» perversely guarantees the serious foreign criminal that the state will be virtually powerless to deport him.

In the following analysis, I shall set out, first, the reasons why I think that an offence such as that committed by Mr I. is not covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» within the meaning of Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004/38.

«Does the term «imperative grounds of public security» contained in Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004 / 38 / EC cover only threats posed to the internal and external security of the State in terms of the continued existence of the State with its institutions and important public services, the survival of the population, foreign relations and the peaceful co ‑ existence of nations?»

The Court is asked to rule whether that provision is to be interpreted as meaning that sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape are covered by the concept of imperative grounds of public security.

(Directive 2004 / 38 / EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Protection against expulsion — Concepts of «public policy» and «public security» — Concept of «imperative grounds of public security» — Criminal conviction for sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape)

By judgment of 14 July 2008, the Verwaltungsgericht dismissed that action, considering that there were imperative grounds of public security and that Mr I.'s conviction revealed personal conduct which gave rise to fears of a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, namely to protect girls and women from sexual assault and rape.

Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004 / 38 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64 / 221 / EEC, 68 / 360 / EEC, 72 / 194 / EEC, 73 / 148 / EEC, 75 / 34 / EEC, 75 / 35 / EEC, 90 / 364 / EEC, 90 / 365 / EEC and 93 / 96 / EEC, is to be interpreted as meaning that sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape are not covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» where those acts do not directly threaten the calm and physical security of the population as a whole or a large part of it.

To decide otherwise would amount to acknowledging that only the objective seriousness of a criminal offence, determined by the penalties incurred or imposed for it, may constitute justification of an expulsion measure on imperative grounds of public security.

By its question, the national court is asking, in essence, whether acts of sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape committed within the family constitute imperative grounds of public security which may justify the expulsion of a Union citizen who has lived for more than 10 years on the territory of the host Member State.

According to Paragraph 6 (5) of the FreizügG / EU, so far as concerns Union citizens and also members of their family who have resided in Germany for the last 10 years, the determination under Paragraph 6 (1) of the FreizügG / EU may be made only on imperative grounds of public security.

On 12 June 2008, Mr I. brought an action against that decision, on the ground that there were no imperative grounds of public security for a declaration of forfeiture of his right to enter and reside.

That provision states that an expulsion decision may be taken against a Union citizen who has resided on the territory of the host Member State for the previous 10 years only on imperative grounds of public security.

In its judgment in Tsakouridis, the Court held that Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004/38 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» which may justify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in the host Member State for the preceding 10 years.

First of all, a criminal not satisfying the «imperative grounds of public security» test is probably not that dangerous.

Having distinguished the nature of the act from the severity of punishment, AG Bot distinguished Tsakouridis (C - 145 / 09) and failed to find that incest would fall within the meaning of «imperative grounds of public security» in the sense of Article 28 (3)(a) of the directive.

Article 28 (3)(a) provides that an expulsion decision may only be taken against Union citizens legally resident for a period of 10 years on «imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States».

Finally, the third paragraph provides that in cases where a Union citizen has resided in the host Member State for the previous 10 years, «imperative grounds of public security» must be brought forward to justify an expulsion decision.

The Court seems to mainly render the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» applicable here due to the particularly heinous nature of the crimes committed by Mr I, opting to leave it «open'to Member States to regard crimes as particularly threatening based on the «particular values» of their respective legal orders.

The issue of the case in P.I basically comes down to the need for the Court to clarify when EU citizen permanent residents can be sent back to their Member State of nationality, which, in turn, necessitates answering the question about the meaning of the «imperative grounds of public security».

In Tsakouridis, the Court had already interpreted the notion of «imperative grounds of public security» in the case of a person dealing with narcotics as part of an organized group.

regard criminal offences such as those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 83 (1) TFEU as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, which might pose a direct threat to the calm and physical security of the population and thus be covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» -LSB-...], as long as the manner in which such offences were committed discloses particularly serious characteristics, which is a matter for the referring court to determine -LSB-...].

There must necessarily be a difference between «serious grounds of public policy or public security» and «imperative grounds of public security» to give effect to the text and structure of Article 28, as also the Court emphasizes (para 19).

Not exact matches

The EEA agreement already contains clauses (28 (3) and 33) allowing for limitations to be placed on the free movement of workers and self - employed persons «on grounds of public policy, public security or public health».

That review also included a note that said the school was opposed to the payment of social security taxes on religious grounds, despite their willingness to accept public tax dollars to support their educational program.

But the creditor must apply these tests fairly, impartially, and without discriminating against you on any of the following grounds: age, gender, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, because you receive public income such as veterans benefits, welfare or Social Security, or because you exercise your rights under Federal credit laws such as filing a billing error notice with a creditor.

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services, the Sites or any Materials therein to take any actions that: (i) infringe on PetSmart Charities» or any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual or proprietary rights, or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, constitute discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sex, disability or other protected grounds, or are pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on PetSmart Charities or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices, or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate any applicable «anti-spam» legislation, including that commonly referred to as «CASL»; (vii) would be or encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international laws or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interference with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of PetSmart Charities» or another party's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other account users or attempt to gain access to other account users» accounts or otherwise mine information about other account users or the Sites, or interfere with any other user's ability to access or use the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) in PetSmart Charities» sole discretion, are contrary to PetSmart Charities» public image, goodwill, reputation or mission, or otherwise not in furtherance of our Vision of a lifelong, loving home for every pet.

The Court found that such measures serve «the ultimate aim -LSB-...] to protect consumers» as well as (in the case of the adequate investments in the distribution system) «security of energy supply» (already recognized in Campus Oil), and are therefore justifiable on overriding grounds in the public interest (para 66).

What Article 28 (3) with its omission of public policy grounds seems to suggest in my view is that — to a certain extent — the mere fact of a 10 years residence has created a link between the EU citizen and the host Member State that is similar to the link between a national and its state; as a consequence expulsion can only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized crime.

Officially titled An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies, the bill «imposes a duty of religious neutrality, in particular on personnel members of public bodies in the exercise of the functions of office» and also recognizes «the importance of having one's face uncovered when public services are provided and received so as to ensure quality communication between persons and allow their identity to be verified, and for security purposes.»

It also says that these rights are subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

The Supreme Court considered whether the English Court, as an enforcing court of a Nigerian arbitral award, was entitled to require a party resisting enforcement to provide security for the money payable under the award as a condition of being entitled to advance a good arguable defence that enforcement should be refused on grounds of English public policy, e.g. because the award was procured by fraud.

As well as a number of ongoing, confidential, arbitrations and complex enforcement disputes, James will be heading to the Supreme Court in February 2017 to challenge the power of the English courts to require security before an award debtor can resist enforcement on public policy grounds.

IPCO took the matter to the Court of Appeal which ruled that enforcement should be granted on the basis that the Gordian knot caused by the «sclerotic» process of the Nigerian proceedings should be cut, and referred the matter back to the Commercial Court to decide whether the alleged fraud could provide NNPC with a public policy defence under s103, and should NNPC be allowed to challenge enforcement on those grounds, further security of USD 100 million had to be provided (in addition to the USD 80 million it had already provided).

It is apparent from recital 23 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 that the expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the EC Treaty, have become genuinely integrated (23) into the host Member State.

Article 27 (2) of the directive provides that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security are to comply with the principle of proportionality (4) and must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned by the expulsion decision.

That right of permanent residence confers on its beneficiary protection against measures of expulsion, which can be taken against him only on serious grounds of public policy or public security.

The Foreign Secretary in February 2013 issued a certificate of Public Interest Immunity (PII), on the grounds of national security and / or international relations, to prevent the disclosure of a representative sample of Government documents relating to the 2006 poisoning.

(vi) Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the HMS shall take into account all relevant considerations including: how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory; his age; state of health; and family links.

(vii) Any expulsion decision shall: be communicated by HMS to the NOAMS in writing; be written in a such a way that the recipient is likely to understand its importance and apprehend its significance; inform the NOAMS precisely and in full, of the public policy, public security or public health grounds on which the decision taken in their case is based, unless this is contrary to the interests of HMS security; and specify the time limits and appeal mechanisms the NOAMS can operate to challenge the decision.

The court accepted that the unions wanted to ensure that all employers active in the Swedish labour market had to pay wages (and apply other terms and conditions) in line with those usual in Sweden, to establish fair competition on an equal basis between Swedish and foreign employers, but then said directly that none of those considerations constituted sufficient grounds of public policy, security or health, and so justification had not been established.

For present purposes, it is possible to extract seven governing principles: (i) Generally, the host member state (HMS) may expel nationals of another member state (NOAMS) from its territory on the grounds of: public policy; public security; and / or public health.

(3) A relevant decision may not be taken in respect of a person with a permanent right of residence under reg 15 except on serious grounds of public policy or public security.

The court said that the discrimination could only be justified on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health.

(ii) NOAMS who have acquired the right of permanent residence in the HMS may only be expelled by the HMS on the grounds of serious public policy, public security or public health.

(6) Before taking a relevant decision on the grounds of public policy or public security in relation to a person who is resident in the UK, the decision - maker must take account of considerations such as the age, state of health, family and economic situation of the person, the person's length of residence in the UK, the person's social and cultural integration into the UK and the extent of the person's links with his country of origin.»

limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health».