Select Committee on European Union Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by Professor Elspeth Guild, Partner, Kingsley Napley Solicitors


  In March 2001 the European Commission proposed a directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long term residents in the Member States of the European Union. This proposal seeks to fulfil the commitment made by the European Council in Tampere, Finland in October 1999 to aim to grant to Europe's third country nationals rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens. In the Commission's explanatory memorandum to the proposal, it considers the international legal framework relevant to the proposal and refers to a study which we undertook at the University of Nijmegen for the Commission on the status of third country nationals in the Member States of the Union. Reference is made to the Recommendation of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the security of residence of long-term migrants adopted on 13 September 2000 (Rec(2000)15) but no comparison is drawn.

  In these submissions I will consider the Commission proposal from three perspectives:

    1.  The fundamental elements relevant to security of residence for foreigners;

    2.  The current state of play in the internal legislation of the Member States with specific reference to UK legislation;

    3.  The position adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in their Recommendation of 13 September 2000.

  Finally I will draw some conclusions about the proposal and its position in relation to the three perspectives. I understand that the UK Government has not yet published its position on whether it will be opting in or out of the proposal. In the light of my conclusions, I would strongly recommend that the UK opt in. While the proposal has shortcomings, nonetheless it is a good starting point for the development of a more just and equitable European public space, where the estimated 13 million third country nationals[1] long resident in the Union are entitled to participate on a footing more closely related to that of nationals of the Member States. Further, the UK has opted into Directive 2001/40 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149/34) which provides for the UK to carry out expulsion decisions adopted by other Member States and thus participate in the extinguishing of secure residence rights of Europe's third country nationals. Thus it is incumbent upon it also to participate in recognising long term residence rights of those same third country nationals most urgently as regards the legal protection in the proposal against unjustified withdrawal of secure residence rights.

  There are four further positions in respect of which the Sub-Committee may wish to be informed but which I will not deal with here. First, European Community law already regulates the rights of third country nationals on the basis of agreements settled between the European Community and third countries. Most important among these are the EEC Turkey Association Agreement and its subsidiary legislation which provides substantial rights of security of residence to Turkish nationals within the Union. In view of the complication of the various different treaty obligations of the Community and Member States under these agreements, there is a strong argument for considering that any Directive on the point should take as a minimum starting point the highest level of rights already granted to third country nationals under these agreements.[2] Secondly, at least three non-governmental organisations have launched substantial and detailed proposals for legal measures providing security of residence to third country nationals in the European Union. To my knowledge, the first was the Netherlands Centre for Foreigners (NCB) in 1997 when it published a proposal for a directive on third country nationals; in 1998-9 the Migration Policy Group based in Brussels commenced a serious campaign for a directive on security of residence for third country nationals. The starting point of that proposal were the rights already granted to third country nationals under European Community agreements with third countries. Thirdly, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association produced a detailed proposal for a directive on third country nationals in its publication: the Amsterdam Proposals in 2000. No doubt the Sub-Committee will be receiving evidence from some if not all of these non-governmental organisations on their positions thus I will not deal with them here. Finally, the Member States adopted a resolution on the status of third country nationals within the intergovernmental Third Pillar of the Union in 1995.


  In my opinion there are three critical questions which must be asked about any status which presents itself as "secure". These are:

    1.  How is the status acquired?

    2.  What are the rights attached to the status?

    3.  How is the status lost and deportation/expulsion become a real possibility?

  It is within the framework of these three questions that the Commission's proposal must be considered against the background of national practices and the Council of Europe's position. Why? The ability to participate fully in a community depends on sufficient security of rights that the individual can use his or her rights without fear of expulsion. For instance, the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations to express support or dissent in respect of political decisions is a cornerstone of our democratic societies. But if participation in peaceful demonstrations may place at risk the possibility to acquire a permanent residence status or result in its withdrawal, this democratic right does not exist in reality for foreigners. If a so called secure status does not include fundamental rights such as the right to work anywhere in the relevant territory then it cannot be considered an effective tool against discrimination as discrimination will always be justifiable at least in theory on the basis of the individual's lack of mobility.

  I will first look at the position of the proposal for a Directive on each of these questions, then consider how the matter was dealt with by the Council of Europe and then briefly review the position in national law of the Member States but with particular reference to the UK. Why? I will start from the Directive as this is the document under examination. Next, the Council of Europe's Recommendation is important for a number of reasons: first it was adopted by the political body, the Committee of Ministers, within which the UK is active and participated in particular in the final stages of the discussions on the recommendation. The Member States of the European Union formed a common position on the Council of Europe proposal. As the EU vote is sufficient to block any measure, the resulting Recommendation must be considered as the base line which the EU Member States considered acceptable regarding security of residence for migrants. Further the Recommendation was only adopted last year at a time when the Community was already competent to adopt a measure on the same subject and when such a proposal was already under preparation by the European Commission. The Council of Europe now includes more than 43 countries in Europe - a much wider Europe than that of the EU. The level of rights which can be agreed in that venue with a much wider and more diverse constituency, must represent the bottom line for the EU. 15 Member States with a strong commitment to the integration of immigrants must at least fulfil the minimum level of rights which can be agreed within the Council of Europe. Further, as the majority of the third country nationals resident in the EU are nationals of Council of Europe countries, any failure of the EU to adopt a position at least as high as that of the Council of Europe's recommendation could be interpreted by other Council of Europe countries as an attempt to avoid reciprocity of duties to one another's nationals. Finally, the national level is important as it also sets a base line against which the proposal must be considered. National administrations have a natural resistance to any EU measure which might require substantial changes to national laws and regulations, let alone practices. Thus the bargaining position of the Member States is structured, not least, around the existing law of the Member States and the degree of change which might be required. A consideration of the three questions from these points of view should provide an insight into the proposal.


  The proposal deals with acquisition of the status at Articles 5—8. Any third country national (not benefiting from a better status from some other source of Community law) who has resided lawfully and continuously for five years is entitled to the status on application. The very strict exclusion of persons granted protection on account of their fear of torture in their country of origin is unfortunate. The proposal only includes persons recognised as refugees which are the minority of persons granted protection in Europe. The residence periods of students only count as half—so students must clock up ten years (with an exception for doctoral students). The individual is required to provide evidence of sufficient resources (at the level of minimum social security benefits) and health insurance. An exception is made for refugees and third country nationals born on the territory. A Member State is required to give the status on presentation of the documents (specified) and within a time limit. Exceptions are permitted on grounds of public order and domestic security (also defined strictly).

  The Council of Europe recommendation provides that member States "should" grant the status of long term immigrant. This is less strong than the proposal for a Directive, but then the instrument in which it is found is a recommendation which cannot establish mandatory requirements. The time period for acquisition of the status under the recommendation is divided into three parts: first, anyone who has resided lawfully and habitually for at least five years and for a maximum of ten years otherwise than as a student; secondly, anyone who has been authorised to reside permanently or for a period of at least five years on the territory; thirdly a family member who has been authorised to reside on that basis of five years. The member States are permitted to add other conditions to the first group only. Thus persons who have been admitted for permanent residence should get the status immediately, which is more generous than the proposal for a Directive.

  In our study of the law and practice of the Member States on the subject, we found that while the status exists in all Member States the period of time for acquisition varies from 2 years in Finland to 15 years in Greece. According to our research, no one had yet acquired the right under Greek law on the basis of residence, thus it was rather academic. In many Member States, but not all, there is a maintenance requirement which is not applied to persons who are refugees or have been granted protection because of their fear of torture in their country of origin; this is also the case in the UK. In the UK, the status is entitled indefinite leave to remain (or if acquired on entry, indefinite leave to enter). It is acquired (1) immediately by some family members (parents and children) joining sponsors who are either British or have the status and by persons recognised as refugees, (2) after one year by spouses of sponsors who are either British of have the status, (3) after four years by persons who entered in work/investment related capacities or whose residence in based on a fear of torture in their country of origin (4) after ten years by persons who have lived lawfully in the UK for that period—mainly students; (5) after 14 years by those who have resided lawfully and unlawfully or totally unlawfully in the UK (a type of rolling regularisation programme).[3] However, unlike most EU states, acquisition of the status in the UK is not by right but rather includes an element of discretion. In practice a person fulfilling the conditions will receive the status.

  The main consequences of the proposal for a Directive for the UK as regards acquisition of the status would be: (1) a clear duty to grant the status to qualifying persons; (2) the level of maintenance is limited to that of social security benefits—at the moment it is a flexible limit applied on unpublished discretionary practices.

  The directive provides, at Article 14, for Member States to continue to grant national secure residence statuses. However, these statuses would not give rise to rights of residence under the Directive. The UK has strongly urged for the use of cross recognition mechanisms in the implementation of Title IV EC. In this situation, the addition of a provision requiring cross recognition of national secure residence statuses in addition to the five year long stop would be most welcome. It would be consistent with the UK's position on measures in the field. It would also permit the maintenance of national provisions which are more generous than the Directive's five year threshold. For the UK this would be important in order not to reduce the position of acquisition of the status already permitted in national law. Early grant of indefinite leave to remain has numerous advantages for the administration: only one decision needs to be taken after which the individual's file may be closed; duplication of effort on applications which are in essence identical but over a period of time is avoided and thus the scarce resources of the IND are not wasted on cases where in practice individuals will inevitably be permitted to stay indefinitely. For the individual, of course there are great advantages of the early acquisition of indefinite leave to remain, acquisition of a secure residence status is critical to making the commitment to the host country to integrate, learn the language, obtain qualifications etc. For the community at large the early acquisition of indefinite leave to remain is beneficial as it diminishes the legal grounds for discrimination against "foreigners" and promotes integration.


  The Commission's proposal contains at Article 12 a list of benefits which the status must include. They number nine and, briefly, are: (1) access to economic activities; (2) education and vocational training; (3) recognition of diplomas; (4) social protection including social security and health care; (5) social assistance; (6) social and tax advantages; (7) access to goods and services including public housing; (8) freedom of association and affiliation and trade union membership; (9) access to the whole territory of the state. The Council of Europe's recommendation includes a similar list but also includes active and passive participation in public life at local level. This is consistent with the Council of Europe's convention on the issue. In both cases the question of family reunification is dealt with in another instrument. In our study we found that many of the benefits contained in the list in Article 12 actually are not tied to the status of long residence. Many benefits are accorded to persons who have not achieved this status yet, for instance contributory social security benefits are accorded on the basis of contributions not residence status; similarly recognition of diplomas and social and tax advantages are frequently not based on residence status (beyond legality). Family reunification, though not on the list is of course not tied to the status as otherwise the spouses and family members of short stay migrants such as senior corporate personnel would be limited. In UK law this is certainly the case, most of the list of rights is not tied specifically to immigration status. Changes in social assistance benefits rules mean that access to some benefits is restricted even after a person acquires indefinite leave to remain or indeed citizenship.

  Of more importance to this inquiry is the right, attached to the status of long-term resident in the Commission's proposal for a Directive, to residence in any Member State and to exercise economic activities or to study there. In effect, what is proposed is that after a third country national has acquired the status of long-term resident and this status has been confirmed by the issue of the appropriate document (specified in the text) the individual will have a free movement right similar to that of Community nationals to move, reside and take up activities anywhere in the Union. Articles 15 - 18 set out the right. There is no similar provision in the Council of Europe recommendation. In European Community law there is such a right of free movement on the basis of nationality of one of the Member States. It is always useful to note that approximately 1.7% of the EU population lives in a country other than that of nationality. Thus the right of free movement, while used substantially for the purposes of tourism, is hardly used at all for long term residence or active economic activity (as opposed to activities as a consumer).

  In the national law of the Member States historically there have been four areas where special rules of free movement apply: the Benelux area, the Nordic Union, the Common Travel Area (between the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen area, now absorbed into the EC Treaty (with the addition of Iceland and Norway). While some of these areas specifically provide rights to third country nationals, others, like the Common Travel Area do so implicitly by providing by order for regular status of third country nationals passing among the participating states.[4] The creation of a right to reside and exercise economic activities for long-term residents within the Union is a necessary component of an area of freedom, security and justice, the objective of the European Community's new powers in the field of borders and migration. The decision has been taken to seek to create a unified territory within which fundamental rights apply to all persons resident, irrespective of their nationality. The adoption of the Charter on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms referred to by the Commission in its explanatory memorandum is critical to this development. The single market project must include movement of persons for economic activities, the Charter and the development of an area of freedom, security and justice demands equality of rights within the territory.

  Thus there is nothing dramatic about the proposal, it is a measure on European integration which is consistent with the policies of the Member States, including the UK. Indeed, for the UK this is particularly important as we have remained opted out of the Schengen related provisions on the abolition of border controls among the Member States. As we have retained the right to continue to practice border controls on persons coming to the UK, our long-term resident third country nationals have many more difficulties in travelling to other Member States, exercising economic activities there or studying there than those in other Member States. Unlike the Turkish national long resident in Germany and seeking to go to the Netherlands who encounters no border control in the process, the UK resident Indian national must obtain a Schengen visa even to cross the border from Dover to Calais for a day trip. Thus the UK's long resident third country nationals are discriminated against in their access to other Member States to a much more substantial degree than the long resident third country nationals of other Member States (except Ireland which remains in the same category as the UK).

  This proposal for a directive would change that discrimination against our third country nationals. Once they have acquired their long-term resident cards, they will be entitled to travel to other Member States, and if appropriate to work or study there for a while. This part of our population would no longer be blocked in the UK, the objects of manifest discrimination. For instance as regards school trips, the whole class becomes aware of the "difference" of one child on the basis of that child having a passport which makes it very difficult for him or her to go on the school trip with the others. Under the proposal, the acquisition of the European document—the long-term resident card—would provide the critical administrative tool—so that the exercise of the cross border economic or educational right would no longer be disputed.

  One of the more difficult issues to resolve in UK racial discrimination realities is the differential rates of employment and work place advancement of some ethnic minority groups in comparison with the white population. While this problem is by no means directly linked to the colour of a person's passport, the fact of having a non-EU passport creates another barrier to employment and advancement: the individual cannot seek to better his or her chances in another EU Member State. The proposal would change this situation-our long-term resident third country nationals would be equally able to advance their careers by working or studying without difficulties and administrative obstacles in other Member States. As recruitment agencies in the UK stress increasingly, in order to rise to the top of a commercial enterprise it is increasingly necessary to have overseas experience, usually within the company but often outside it. Without experience of workplace practices abroad the chances of making it to board level decline substantially. Thus the blockage of our third country nationals from easy access to international work experience places them at a disadvantage in comparison with their colleagues. The proposal would address this problem in a constructive and useful way.


  There are two aspects to this question, first how can the status once acquired be withdrawn, and secondly on what grounds, if at all can an individual be deported or expelled? The first question is dealt with in Article 10 of the proposal, the second in Article 13. The Proposal permits the Member State to withdraw the long-term resident status on four grounds: (1) where the individual has been absent from the territory for two years or more consecutively with exceptions relating to military service, secondment for employment purposes, studies, research, serious illness, pregnancy or maternity; (2) detection of fraud in the acquisition of the status; (3) acquisition of the status in another Member State; (4) adoption of an expulsion measure. In practice, the exceptions as regards absence are sufficient to cover most people who are unavoidably detained abroad for a substantial period of time, fraud and acquisition of the status elsewhere in any event are unlikely to involve substantial numbers of persons, leaving expulsion as a major consideration.

  The Council of Europe recommendation provides that the secure residence status can only be withdrawn on the basis of (1) fraud or concealment of relevant information; (2) more than six months residence outside the state and no request for permission to remain further abroad; (3) conviction of serious crimes; (4) constituting a serious threat to national security. The last two grounds are covered in the Commission's proposal by the provision relating to expulsion to which I will return shortly. In the national law of the Member States there is some variation on the grounds for withdrawal of the status. In all Member States there are some provisions on fraud, though some Member States place a bar on withdrawal of the status on the grounds of fraud after a specified period of residence (e.g. Sweden). In their view, continuous residence and integration outweigh the interests of punishing fraudulent behaviour. In all Member States long absence from the territory is a ground for withdrawal of the status but the period varies from short—i.e. six months (in e.g. Germany)—to three years (France). In the UK the period of permitted continuous absence is two years but the status can be lost before that period if the individual expresses the view that he or she has become resident in another country. Administratively this is problematic as the control most frequently takes place at the airport when an immigration officers asks a returning resident what the purpose of his or her arrival is. If the individual incautiously suggests that it is a visit for family or relatives, perhaps because the person is studying abroad and is coming back for the summer holidays, the immigration officer may quite properly under the Immigration Rules refuse to permit the continuation of the long residence status. The problem occurs at the airport with the substantial risk that the individual will be sent back to the country he or she has just come from and all the difficulties surrounding appeals from abroad which that entails. Administratively this is messy and creates conflict. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are not well organised from this perspective in the UK. Unfortunately the Commission's proposal would not resolve these problems.

  However, the Commission's proposal is substantially similar to the domestic law of the UK and thus would not cause substantial changes to domestic practice, albeit unfortunately flawed. It is important to note that the status cannot be withdrawn on the basis of unemployment or reliance on public funds. Neither the Commission's proposal, the Council of Europe recommendation nor the law of the Member States (except in very exceptional cases such as Austria) permits the loss of the status on this ground.

  Turning then to expulsion or deportation, the Commission proposes that this be permitted only where the personal conduct of the individual constitutes an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public order or domestic security that affects a fundamental interest of society. The proposal specifies that personal conduction which is not a sufficiently serious threat to take measures against own nationals can never qualify. Further, criminal convictions are not of themselves sufficient to justify expulsion. Nor can economic reasons justify expulsion. These grounds are very similar if not identical to those relevant to the protection of Community nationals against expulsion when in the territory of a Member State other than that of their nationality. The main divergence is the reference to "domestic security" which lacks definition in the case law of the Court of Justice.

  The Commission's proposal goes on to specify that before a decision to expel a long-term resident can be taken the Member State must have regard to (1) the duration of the residence of the individual on the territory; (2) the person's age; (3) the consequences for the person concerned and his or her family members; (4) the links with the country of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin.

  The Council of Europe recommendation permits expulsion where an individual has been convicted of serious crimes or constitutes a serious threat to national security. However, before a decision can be taken the member State must take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to private and family life[5] including (1) the personal behaviour of the immigrant; (2) the duration of residence; (3) the consequences for both the immigrant and his or her family; (4) existing links of the immigrant and his or her family to his or her country of origin. This list of considerations does not differ in substance from that of the Commission's proposal, not least as both the proposal and the recommendation use as the guide to protection against expulsion the obligation common to all the Member States of respect for private and family life contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

  In the national law of the Member States in our study we found that there was substantial conformity with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, whether that was explicit or not. However, three countries continue to have difficulties with the correct application of the right contained in Article 8—France,[6] the Netherlands[7] and the UK. In a number of Member States a system of graded protection is provided in addition. The individual is given an increasing level of security of residence depending on the length of his or her residence in the state. This often begins with a strong protection against expulsion after five years and moving to an absolute prohibition on expulsion after 20 years (the Netherlands). In the UK deportation of persons with indefinite leave to remain is very much the exception. With only very rare exceptions (usually based on national security grounds) the reason for making a deportation decision is one or more criminal convictions of a serious nature. The factors which the IND must take into account before taking a deportation decision are very similar to those set out in the proposal for a Directive and the Council of Europe recommendation though slightly larger (i.e. including the employment record of the individual etc).


  Finally, in this area there is an urgent need for compensatory measures to provide security of residence status for the EU's third country nationals following the adoption on 28 May 2001 of Directive 2001/40 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149/34). The Directive relates to the situation where one Member State has taken an expulsion decision against a third country national on the basis of (1) a conviction for an offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year (which may include very trivial matters indeed as the penalty for the individual does not need to be one year's imprisonment, that must only be the minimum for the possible penalty for the offence) (2) there are serious grounds for believing that a third country national has committed serious criminal offences or there is strong evidence of his or her intention to commit such offences; though in both these cases the decision must have been taken on the basis that the individual is a serious and present threat to public order or to national security and safety; or (3) failure to comply with national rules on entry and residence of aliens. In such cases, the Member States, including the UK, have provided themselves with the power to recognise automatically one another's decisions and to carry out the execution of expulsion decisions of the other Member State if the individual is found on its territory. This is an exceedingly draconian measure as well as a rather unrealistic one. It is draconian because there is no real protection for the individual whose remedies are in a state other than the one which is purporting to carry out an expulsion decision; unrealistic as it anticipates that the administrations of the Member States are eager to carry out complicated and expensive expulsion orders on one another's behalf. As most Member States have enough trouble carrying out their own expulsion decisions (including anxious scrutiny by the national courts) this optimism as regards enforcement of other countries' expulsion orders does not seem particularly warranted.

  However, what is worrying about the Directive is that is sets an exceedingly low threshold of protection for individuals. This urgently needs to be remedied, not least by the adoption of rules regarding the circumstances in which expulsion decisions can be taken in respect of Europe's long resident third country nationals.


  At the outset of this submission I stated that I would draw some conclusions regarding the proposal for a Directive on long term resident third country nationals and the UK's participation. I have four conclusions to draw:

    1.  The proposal is welcome as an important part of the fight against discrimination and the integration of Europe's long resident third country nationals. If the UK opts into the Directive this will provide an important boost to the position of the UK's long term resident third country nationals and diminish the legal discrimination which they suffer in the UK as excluded from the benefits of Community free movement rights.

    2.  The proposal builds in a valuable and consistent manner on the Council of Europe's recommendation concerning the security of residence of long term migrants adopted on 13 September 2000. The Community measure on security of residence for third country nationals must not fall below the level of protection which the Member States agreed within the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Anything less would be highly detrimental to the solidarity between the Europe of the 15 Member States and the wider Europe of the Council of Europe, not least as many of the individuals who are directly concerned by the proposed Directive are nationals of Council of Europe states.

    3.  The proposal is consistent with the national laws of most of the Member States in most areas. While each Member State will have to make adjustments to bring its law up to the common level, these adjustments are not substantial. The main considerations for the UK government are twofold: first the Directive would create a right to the status for persons fulfilling the criteria which does not exist at the moment. However, as virtually all persons who fulfil the national conditions for indefinite leave to remain are granted it, this would make little difference. Secondly, it would create a right for third country nationals who benefit from the long-term residence status to reside and to exercise economic activities and educational pursuits in any Member State. This is a necessary corollary of the internal market and the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. Further, as mentioned above in point 1 it is important for the UK's long-term resident third country nationals. It should be noted that this does not require the abolition of controls at the UK's borders.

    4.  The proposed Directive and the UK's participation in it is urgently needed to counteract the negative effects of the Directive on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals. That Directive provides no real protection for individual third country nationals. Other than a reference in the preamble, it does not take into account the duties of the Member States under the European Convention on Human Rights to refrain from interference with private and family life, not least by the execution of expulsion decisions. This proposed Directive goes some way (though sadly not far enough as it only protects those who have acquired a long-term residence status) in redressing the deficiencies of the Directive so recently adopted.

  Those who have lived and worked along side us in our states for many years are part of our identity. We harm ourselves when we make harsh rules about some of us on the basis of the colour of our passports.

21 June 2001

1   This figure also includes persons with less than five years continuous residence in a Member State so exceeds the number of persons who would be eligible to benefit from the proposed directive. Back

2   I have reviewed this position recently in `Security of Residence and Expulsion of Foreigners: European Community Law' in E Guild & P Minderhoud Security of Residence and Expulsion: Protection of Aliens in Europe Kluwer Law International: The Hague, 2001 pp 59-82. Back

3   See National Report: UK by E Guild & R Cholewinski in B Nascimbene Expulsion and Detention of Aliens in the European Union Countries, Guiffre Editore: Milan 2001 pp 497-534. Back

4   For further discussion see A Nicol, `The Common Travel Area' and J Vedsted Hansen `Abolition of Boder Controls within the Nordic region and Security of Residence in Denmark' in E Guild & P Minderhoud Security of Residence and Expulsion: Protection of Aliens in Europe Kluwer Law International: The Hague, 2001. Back

5   See P van Dijk `Protection of "integrated" aliens against expulsion under the European Convention on Human Rights' and C Harvey `Promoting Insecurity: public order, expulsion and the European Convention on Human Rights' in E Guild & P Minderhoud, Security of Residence and Expulsion: Protection of Aliens in Europe, Kluwer Law International: the Hague, 2001 pp 23-40 and 41-58. Back

6   Ezzouhdi v France 13 February 2001, Application number: 47160/99. Back

7   Ciliz v Netherlands 27 June 2000, Application number: 29192/95. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001