Sentences with phrase «imperative grounds»

(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.

(15) The difference between «serious grounds» and «imperative grounds» already seems to indicate the intention of the Union legislature.

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-...].

As a starting point, he found that the present crime did not raise security concerns falling within the ambit of such «imperative grounds», as the mere risk of reoffending was not sufficient for this purpose (para 40) and P.I.'s case also had to be distinguished from that of «sexual predators» who indeed created a threat for society at large (para 44).

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

He defends the social gospel but grounds it in the total religious outlook of Jesus, not in ethical imperatives only.

Interpretations of where it is «morally imperative» to intervene remain selective, and intervention is never purely based on high moral or humanitarian grounds; there are a number of humanitarian emergencies and nasty dictatorships throughout the world in which the international community has not stepped in.

But there were ample grounds for Jesus» impatience with the Pharisees; and they are the same grounds that make it imperative that we do not allow Christian faith to lapse into an ethical legalism or a rigid moralism.

«Because of the amount of time kids spend in school, and given the fact that many first - time allergic reactions occur on school grounds, it is imperative for school districts across the country to provide access to emergency epinephrine to students who may not otherwise have access to the potentially life - saving medication,» Gupta said.

Proofreading is an imperative administration on the grounds that any composition proposed for distribution - whether a scholastic article, book or business record - must impart its message in the clearest conceivable way.

Hound ears can be breeding grounds for yeast infections so cleaning regularly is imperative!

He has just enough political nous to realise that this privileged position he claims for himself can not be justified on poitical grounds — it requires some superior justification, some unassailable truth — hence the «science», and its supposed moral imperatives.

The downward movement from reasonable grounds to believe to reasonable grounds to suspect in some cases (for some production orders)- or to no threshold of evidence at all (for subscriber data access)- must be shown to be a proportionate response to safety and security imperatives.

The Government has justified both amnesties on the grounds of public policy — that the public policy imperative in getting to the true number of casualties (and in ensuring they receive the help they need) is greater than the public policy consideration of punishing those who break the law.

Heeding the guidelines published by the American Psychological Association (Division 29), which state that descriptions of effective psychotherapies that do not mention the therapeutic relationship are «seriously incomplete and potentially misleading on both clinical and empirical grounds» [12], it is imperative to investigate systematically the status of the therapeutic relationship in e-therapy.

These archives are imperative on the grounds that the application won't be prepared without the crucial reports.