The European Court of Justice has ruled that, in the case of a married couple, irrespective of when and where the marriage took place and of how the spouse entered the host State, a non-European Union spouse of a citizen of the European Union can reside with that citizen in the European Union without having previously been resident in another Member State.

The Court reminded Member States that they may still refuse entry and residence to any citizen on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, provided the refusal is based on an individual examination of the particular case. Member States may also refuse, terminate or withdraw the right of entry and residence in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.

See here for the press release issued by the European Court of Justice on this case.

24 July 2008 - The European Commission today published an updated list of airlines that are banned from flying into the European Union. An EU-wide ban has been imposed on all airline carriers from Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Gabon (with the exception of Gabon Airlines and Afrijet both of which already fly to the EU). Eight other individual airlines have also been banned.

The blacklist names carriers which are considered unsafe and are therefore not permitted to operate within European airspace. The new list can be consulted on the Commission’s transport website.

Antonio Tajani, Commission Vice-President in charge of transport said that "This is another important step in the continuous Commission's effort to enhance civil aviation safety, in the interest of all passengers. The Commission will pursue its cooperation and support to states, their civil aviation authorities and their airlines to ensure that the internationally agreed air safety standards are properly implemented."

The decision to ban all airlines from Gabon follows the worrying International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) audit on Gabon. The Commission acknowledges that the government of Gabon has made efforts to improve the safety record of their civil aviation with direct help from the ICAO.

The Commission has lifted its ban on the Iranian carrier Mahan Airlines, in view of progress made by the carrier, which was verified during inspections in Iran.

An existing ban on Ukraine Cargo Airways has been maintained as the airline has not yet been able to successfully implement its corrective action plan. The Commission has reminded the Ukrainian authorities of the need to strengthen enforcement of safety standards.

The Commission also upholds a ban on three Indonesian airlines – Garuda, Mandala and Air Fast – as the Indonesian authorities have not yet developed and implemented an efficient oversight programme on any of the carriers under their regulatory control.

Background

In January 2004, a charter flight bound for Paris plunged into the Red Sea shortly after takeoff from Sharm el-Sheikh airport in Egypt, killing all 148 people on board, mainly European tourists. It turned out that Switzerland had already banned the Cairo-based company from its airspace after finding serious shortcomings in one of its planes during a 2002 spot check. The accident showed that more stringent safety rules were needed in the EU. To this end, a regulation that came into force in January 2006 established a list of air carriers subject to a ban within the EU. The blacklist was first published in March 2006 and since then has been updated every 3 months. 

23 July 2008 - The European Commission is proposing concrete measures to ban the trade of seal products within, into, and from the EU. Earlier today, a draft EU regulation was adopted by the Commission which aims to ensure that products derived from seals killed in inhumane ways are excluded from the European market. Trade in seal products would only be allowed where guarantees can be provided that the animals did not suffer unnecessarily.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas explained: "Seal products from countries which practice hunting methods that involve unnecessary pain and suffering must not be allowed to enter the EU. The EU is committed to upholding high standards of animal welfare."

According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) seals can be killed by a number of methods that do not cause avoidable pain, distress and suffering.

Under the proposed regulation, in countries where seal hunting continues a certification scheme would be established, coupled, if necessary, with a distinctive label or marking, which would ensure that seal products are clearly certified as coming from a country meeting strict conditions.

Existing EU legislation prohibits the import of skins of whitecoat pups of harp seals and of pups of hooded seals into the EU under the Seal Pups Directive. Seals are also protected under the Habitats Directive.

The proposed ban will also harmonise rules on the trade of seal products in the EU, which currently vary from country to country. The proposal will now be submitted to the European Parliament and to Council for approval.

Background

Seals are hunted mainly for their skin, fat, and meat. The methods used to kill seals and their effectiveness vary considerably. These include shooting, clubbing or the use of traps and nets.

Seals are usually found along the coasts of polar and sub-polar regions of the globe, but some are also found in some temperate regions. According to the EFSA, there are 33 species of seals. Nearly half of these - 15 or 16 - are hunted by man. Between 750,000 and 900,000 seals are killed and skinned for commercial purposes each year, out of a total seal population of between 15 and 16 million. Seal hunting occurs year round, but the hunting season varies on the region and the species targeted. Most hunted seals belong to five species: harp seals, ringed seals, grey seals, hooded seals and Cape Fur seals.

In the British Isles, the two most common species of seal are grey seals (estimated population of 102,000) and the common or harbour seal (estimated population of 30,000). The main threats to these species are overfishing, net entanglement and disease as a result of pollution (Source: www.whalewatchwestcork.com).

Most seal hunting is carried out around the Arctic, and in southern Africa. In 2006, Canada, Greenland and Namibia accounted for approximately 60% of all seals killed. Within the European Union, hunting of seals is mainly concentrated in Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom.

For more information visit the European Commission's animal welfare page.

16 July 2008 - As thousands head abroad on holidays over the coming weeks, holidaymakers are reminded to take the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) with them. The card entitles you to medical care if you become ill or have an accident abroad and is valid in the 27 EU Member States as well as Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland.

Where can I obtain a European Health Insurance Card?

You have the following options in applying for your European Health Insurance Card:

• You can apply online at www.ehic.ie if you already have either a medical card or a Drugs Payment Scheme (DPS) card
• You can apply in person by completing an application form at your local Health Office
• To apply by post, ask for an application form at your local Health Office, Community Care office or Health Centre. An application form can be posted to you from these offices or you can download it from www.ehic.ie.  Return the completed forms to your local Health Office

The card entitles you to public healthcare and holders are reminded that it is not intended to replace travel insurance.

Like the euro, the European Health Insurance Card is a little piece of Europe in people's pockets. Every country issues their own cards but the card always looks the same and so it's easily recognised by medical staff.

Further information

Frequently Asked Questions on the European Health Insurance Card

14 July 2008 - The European Commission is reminding consumers to stay safe in the sun this Summer. Rules on labels for sunscreen products, first introduced by the Commission two years ago, mean that terms such as "100% protection" or "sun block" should no longer be used and labels should carry clear indications of protection against UV-A radiation. It's estimated that at least 70% of sunscreens on sale in the EU at the moment comply with these rules.

EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner Meglena Kuneva said: “Our message to consumers this summer is very clear: look out for these new labels and make an informed decision about the sunscreen products you use for yourself and your family this Summer."  EU Health Commissioner Androula Vassiliou said "There are serious health risks such as skin cancer linked to insufficient protection from the sun. EU citizens need to be fully informed about what sunscreens will and will not do for them."

According to the labelling rules introduced by the European Commission in 2006:

•         Terms such as “sun block” or “100% protection” should not be used any more.  No sunscreen product can provide a full protection against UV radiation.

•         Descriptions such as “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high" protection should be used alongside traditional SPF (sun protection factor) indicators. For example, an SPF of 25 will correspond to an indicator of "medium protection".

•         Labelling of UV-A protection: while UV-B radiation is the cause of “sun-burn”, UV-A radiation causes premature skin ageing and interferes with the human immune system. Both types of radiation contribute to the risk of skin cancer. The so-called ‘sun protection factor (SPF)’ only refers to equal levels of sunburn (UV-B radiation) and not to similar effects from UV-A radiation. Sunscreen products with only UV-B-protection may provide a false sense of safety because they let UV-A radiation through.

•         A standardised UV-A seal on labels, indicating a quantified minimum UV-A protection which increases in parallel with an increasing sun protection factor and is based on a standardised testing method.

The EU is a major and growing market for sunscreens. In 2007, the estimated retail value (retail sales price) of sunscreen products in Europe was over € 1.7 billion. There was a + 5.1 % increase in sales in the EU in 2007 compared to 2006.  The EU sunscreen market is dominated by European companies: amongst the top ten suppliers in the EU, there are only two non-European companies. (Source: Euromonitor). 

The new labelling requirements: 

For more information, see the press release on sunscreen products.

See also the public health portal.

10 July 2008 - The full results of an opinion poll conducted in Ireland the weekend after the Lisbon Treaty referendum has been published today. The latest survey on Irish attitudes to the EU is also out today. The results of both polls were presented at a press conference in Dublin today.

The post-referendum poll reveals that the most common reason for voting No was a lack of knowledge about the Treaty and a reluctance to vote on something unfamiliar (22% of No voters). The main reason for voting Yes was that the Treaty was in Ireland’s best interests (32% of Yes voters).

Professor Richard Sinnott, a voter behaviour expert from UCD said "There is a continuing problem of low levels of knowledge and there is evidence in the report which shows that there is a strong relationship between positive attitudes to the EU and knowledge. In general, the more people know about the EU, the more they like it."

The survey found that women, younger voters, those with lower levels of education and manual workers were more likely to have voted No in the referendum. Even those who voted Yes found the No campaign more convincing.

When it came to political party affiliations, Sinn Féin supporters mostly followed the party line in voting No (95% of those respondents who claimed to be Sinn Féin voters rejected the Treaty), while all of the parties which advocated a Yes vote lost a significant share of their party supporters in the referendum. Over half of Green and Labour voters voted No (57% and 55% respectively) and almost half of Fine Gael supporters (49%) voted No.

Of those who decided not to vote in the referendum, the main reason given was a lack of understanding of the issues raised by the referendum (52% of those who didn't vote) or because they were not informed about the issues at stake (42%) or about the content of the Treaty (37%). 45% of those who didn't vote said they were too busy.

More than half of those who said that they didn't vote because of a lack of information on or understanding of the issues involved, said that they would have liked to have seen more information from the government. Most would have preferred to have seen more information on television.

One in ten voters already knew how they would vote when the referendum was announced and about a fifth (19%) had made up their mind by the beginning of the campaign. But more than half of the electorate (55%) made their choice in the final weeks of the campaign. Women were also more likely to have changed their minds during the campaign, as were Yes voters and those in the 25-54 age group.

More than three quarters of No voters thought that the negative outcome of the referendum would allow Ireland to renegotiate exceptions within the Treaty, would allow Ireland to keep its neutrality or its tax system. 60% of No voters thought that the No vote would mean that Ireland wouldn’t have to change its legislation on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia.

Background

Following the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June, a survey of 2,000 randomly selected Irish adults was conducted between 13 and 15 June. The survey was conducted at the request of the European Commission Representation in order to understand the reasons for low voter turnout in the referendum, views about the campaign, reasons for the “yes” or “no” votes and overall reaction to the result. Respondents were also asked for their views on the likely consequences of the referendum.

See here for the full text of the report on the results of the post-referendum survey and the standard survey on attitudes to the EU.

9 July 2008 - Member States have never performed better in implementing agreed Internal Market rules into national law, according to the European Commission’s latest Internal Market Scoreboard. The full text of the latest Internal Market Scoreboard is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/score/index_en.htm

Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "I am delighted that Member States have reached the new 1% target well ahead of the deadline set by the European Council. This is a remarkable feat and deserves special praise. I hope that this very positive trend will continue in future Scoreboards. However, timely implementation by itself is not enough: the Single Market also needs to function well in practice. In future we will be putting increasing focus on the proper implementation of Single Market laws at national level, and on stepping up cooperation with Member States in this area."

Implementation of Internal Market Directives

• At 1.0%, the average transposition deficit – the percentage of Internal Market Directives that have not been implemented into national law in time – of the 27 Member States matches the new target deficit to be achieved by 2009 at the latest, and is well below the original target of 1.5%. 18 Member States have achieved the new 1.0% target.
• 10 Member States have achieved their best result so far: Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania, and Slovakia
• 3 Member States have equalled their best result: Spain, Malta and Slovenia.
• Bulgaria is in first position with a transposition deficit of 0%. Slovakia, Romania, Germany, Latvia and Lithuania are no more than 10 directives away from that perfect score.
• 4 Member States that missed the future 1% target six months ago have now reached it: France, Finland, Hungary and Ireland.
• Sweden has a deficit of 0.8%, and the United Kingdom a deficit of 0.9%, both down from 1.0% in December 2007.
• Greece managed to reduce its deficit to 1.4% for the first time ever.

• However, Member States still move at different speeds: if the Member States that are still above the 1.5% deficit target managed to reduce their deficit to just 1.5%, the average EU deficit would be below 1%.
• Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland reversed their positive trend from six months ago.
• In reverse order, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Poland, Luxembourg, and Cyprus still fail to reach the 1.5% target. However, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic and (to a lesser extent) Portugal have made significant progress in reducing their deficits the past half year. On the other hand Cyprus' transposition deficit increased for the third consecutive time and as a result its 1.7% deficit is the same as three years ago. Poland also saw a slight increase in its transposition deficit compared to last time, from 1.7% up to 1.8%.
• The breakdown of the transposition deficit according to sectors shows that the rules on free movement of persons are the source of the highest proportion of directives not yet transposed (7.9%). The EU rules on financial services come second with 4.5%. As a result these are two sectors where citizens and businesses are particularly deprived of the full potential of the Internal Market.

Infringements

• The ranking of Member States according to the number of infringement cases remains almost unaltered compared to December 2007, with Italy accounting for the highest number of cases.
• Despite the fact that the EU average of 48 open infringement procedures almost equals the result of 49 cases half a year ago, the overall trend is positive. 15 Member States managed to reduce the number of infringement cases, compared to 10 Member States last time. The highest reduction in open infringement procedures has been recorded in respect of Italy (7), followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland (6).
• In doubling its number of cases, Bulgaria has seen the biggest increase. However, taking into account that Bulgaria joined the EU relatively recently, this is not unusual and the overall number is still very low.
• Environmental rules are still the source of the highest number of cases (23%), followed by taxation and customs union rules (18%). The areas of energy and transport, public procurement and services saw a reduction in the number of cases by 1%.

Benefits of the Internal Market and the importance of implementation

The Internal Market plays a key role in achieving the EU's objective of creating more growth and jobs. It has created millions of jobs and billions of euros in prosperity. It gives EU citizens a wider choice of quality goods and services and greater freedom to travel, work, study and live in other EU countries, while making for a more efficient allocation of resources and offering greater trading opportunities to businesses. But the Internal Market can only achieve its full potential if legislation agreed at European level is effectively implemented and applied by all Member States.

8 July 2008 - A 1999 EU directive on toll charges for heavy goods vehicles is set to be overhauled. Under proposed new EU rules, Member States will be able to calculate tolls for HGVs based on pollution and traffic congestion. Essentially this will mean that the polluter rather than the taxpayer will pay for the environmental costs of road freight transport. The proposal is part of a range of measures to make the transport sector "greener" and more sustainable.

Antonio Tajani, EU Transport Commissioner said "This package is about tackling pollution and climate change, and making sure the polluter and not the taxpayer pays for environmental damage. Among the results will be greener transport, fewer emissions, up to 8% less fuel consumption by lorries and fewer hold-ups for all road users. Delays, unnecessary emissions and soaring costs are bad for transport companies, for their clients and for all of us. A more efficient and sustainable transport system will in the long run be a more user-friendly and cheaper transport system."

At the moment the so-called "Eurovignette Directive", which dates back to 1999, allows Member States to set tolls at levels required to maintain and replace infrastructure. The proposed revision would allow Member States to levy tolls based not only on infrastructure costs, but also on the air and noise pollution from traffic emissions and peak-hour congestion levels. The revenue will go towards reducing the environmental impacts of transport and cutting congestion and will be spent on projects to alleviate the negative impacts of transport, such as research and development on cleaner and more energy efficient vehicles.

The revised directive will mean that hauliers will be financially rewarded for using cleaner vehicles. As charges will be based on criteria such as noise pollution and population density, hauliers will be given a clear financial incentive to route their vehicle on motorways and trunk roads and avoid suburban areas as much as possible. They will also be able to reduce the congestion costs they generate and the charges they pay by scheduling their vehicles to operate outside peak hours and to avoid busy roads at busy times.

Road freight is growing faster than GDP and the growth rate of international road freight transport expected to double between 2000 and 2020.

The revision of the Eurovignette Directive will now go forward to the European Parliament and the Council for debate and adoption under the co-decision procedure. Both the Parliament and the Council have asked the Commission to bring forward this measure, so it is expected that it will come into effect before 2011.

Another important element of today's package includes a policy document on reducing noise from rail freight by 50%. Old wagons are the main culprits for rail noise and so, at the end of the year the Commission will make a proposal to change rules on track access charges to promote the use of wagons with low-noise brake systems.

The package also includes an inventory of existing EU measures on greening transport and a document on the additional initiatives that the Commission plans to take before the end of 2009.

See here for a list of frequently asked questions on the Greening Transport package and some general statistics on road freight transport.

The full package can be accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/greening/index_en.htm

2 July 2008 - A new directive which would simplify cross-border healthcare in the EU has been proposed today by the European Commission. The draft directive boosts rights of patients to get healthcare in another EU Member State and simplifies the procedures.

European Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said: “This proposal aims to clarify how patients can exercise their rights to cross-border health care and have safe, high-quality care when they do so. At the same time, it provides legal certainty for Member States and healthcare providers about who is responsible for what, and promotes cooperation between health systems to provide better access to specialised care."

Once implemented by the Member States, the directive will have the following practical benefits:

• As long as a treatment is covered under their national healthcare system, patients will be allowed to receive that treatment in another EU country and be reimbursed without prior authorisation. For hospital care however, under certain circumstances, a Member State may decide to introduce a system in which patients require an administrative prior authorisation before seeking care abroad.
• The patient will have to pay the costs to the healthcare provider abroad upfront, but will receive reimbursement afterwards up to the cost of the same or similar treatment in their national health system.
• Applications, including the reimbursement of costs, will be processed without delay and fairly, and patients will have the right to ask for a review of any administrative decision.
• All relevant information on cross-border healthcare will be available through national contact points.
• It will be easier for patients to use a prescription they received abroad in their home Member State.
• Patients can be confident about the quality and safety standards of healthcare abroad, which are guaranteed in the same way as they are for domestic patients. The country where treatment is provided is responsible for clinical oversight.

While most people would prefer to receive medical treatment in their own country, every year Europeans decide to avail of medical treatment abroad. However at the moment, the rules on obtaining healthcare abroad are far from clear and Europeans are largely unaware of what they are entitled to.

Background

Discussions about cross-border healthcare and in particular 'patient mobility', were prompted after judgements of the European Court of Justice in a number of cases concerning the mobility of individual citizens from different Member States. In its judgements on these cases, the Court has consistently ruled that patients have the right to be reimbursed for healthcare received in another Member State that they would have received at home.

See here for more information.

2 July 2008 - Certain types of government aid for the Irish fisheries sector will no longer have to receive approval from the European Commission before being implemented, following the approval of a block exemption regulation for fisheries by the Commission today. The regulation includes all categories of aid covered by the European Fisheries Fund, with the exception of aid for investments in the fleet and aid for sustainable development of fisheries areas.

What is covered by the new block exemption? And what is not?

Actions financed from national funds in the following areas which fulfil the criteria of the new block exemption regulation, and comply with the detailed conditions for such measures as laid down in the EFF, are exempt from prior notification:

• Aid for permanent and temporary cessation of fishing activities
• Aid for socio-economic compensation for the management of the fleet
• Aid for productive investments in aquaculture
• Aid for aqua-environmental measures
• Aid for public health measures
• Aid for animal health measures
• Aid for inland fishing
• Aid for processing and marketing
• Aid for collective actions
• Aid for measures intended to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora
• Aid for investments in fishing ports, landing sites and shelters
• Aid for development of new markets and promotional campaigns
• Aid for pilot projects
• Aid for modification for reassignment of fishing vessels
• Aid for technical assistance
• Tax exemptions in accordance with the Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC)

All other areas will remain subject to prior notification, however, including in particular:

• Aid for vessel modernisation
• Aid for the sustainable development of fisheries areas.

Background

Member States that wish to grant state aid in the eligible areas may do so by submitting the relevant summary information to the Commission for publication. The measures covered by the block exemption relate to aid unlikely to distort competition and which therefore has never given rise to investigation procedures by the Commission. It also extends the block exemption to certain new areas, such as aid for temporary cessation of activity, where the EFF conditions are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. Other areas, however, such as aid for vessel modernisation, will remain subject to in depth ex ante assessment by the Commission.

The Regulation also exempts, under certain conditions, aid in the form of tax exemptions on fuel implemented pursuant to the Council Directive on energy taxation, insofar as these tax exemptions constitute State aid.

The block exemption applies only to aid granted to small and medium-sized enterprises. The amount of aid exempted may not exceed €1 million, and the projects financed may not have eligible costs in excess of €2 million.

To ensure the proper allocation of such aid, monitoring will be carried out in the form of a simplified procedure for informing the Commission of the aid to be granted, followed by publication on the internet and in the Official Journal, and reporting obligations once the aid in question has been delivered. Aid not covered by the block exemption Regulation will remain subject to the obligation of prior notification to the Commission and will be assessed under the new Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture, which were adopted in April 2008.