Residents of everywhere? The CJEU rules on loss of immigration status due to absence from the territory

 

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

Immigration status is often lost due to a certain period of absence from the territory of the country which granted it. But what if that absence is briefly interrupted? The CJEU addressed that issue in a recent judgment concerning non-EU citizens with EU long-term resident status – which may also be relevant to those covered by EU free movement law and the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

Background

The recent judgment interpreted the EU’s long-term residence (LTR) directive, adopted back in 2003 and amended in 2011 to include refugees and people with subsidiary protection, which the Commission plans to propose amendments to in April. Ireland, Denmark, and the UK (when a Member State) opted out of the legislation – although the Directive is now relevant to British citizens as non-EU citizens (I previously discussed its application to UK citizens here).

After five years’ legal residence, the Directive provides that non-EU citizens can apply for long-term residence status in a Member State, subject to meeting certain conditions, which guarantees them a degree of equal treatment, a modest facilitation of the prospect of moving to another Member State (falling short of free movement law), and some protection against expulsion. The Directive exists alongside national forms of permanent residence, so not all those eligible for it will have it: some will have the purely national version.

Once obtained, how can EU long-term residence status be lost? Article 9 of the Directive provides that it is lost or withdrawn due to fraud, expulsion, or ‘in the event of absence from the territory of the Community for a period of 12 consecutive months’ (emphasis added). Member States may provide that ‘absences exceeding 12 consecutive months or for specific or exceptional reasons’ do not lead to loss or withdrawal. They may also remove the status where there is a ‘threat to public policy’ due to serious offences, falling short of the threshold for expulsion. LTR status from one Member State is also lost once it is obtained after gaining it from another Member State after residing there.

There is a second provision on absence, providing that LTR status is lost after six years’ absence from the Member State that granted it – although a Member State may provide that the status is nevertheless retained ‘for specific reasons’. (This appears to be limited to cases where the LTR status holder moved to another Member State). As regards both of the rules on absences, Member States ‘shall provide for a facilitated procedure for the re-acquisition of long-term resident status’, which ‘shall apply in particular to the cases of persons that have resided in a second Member State on grounds of pursuit of studies’. However, the conditions and procedure for re-acquiring this status ‘shall be determined by national law’.

Finally, LTR status cannot be lost solely due to the expiry of an LTR residence permit, and if the loss of LTR status does not lead to removal, ‘the Member State shall authorise the person concerned to remain in its territory if he/she fulfils the conditions provided for in its national legislation and/or if he/she does not constitute a threat to public policy or public security’.

The CJEU judgment

The recent judgment concerned a Kazakh citizen with LTR status from Austria. He applied for renewal of his permit in 2018, but the Austrian authorities turned his application down in 2019 because, for the five-year period between August 2013 and August 2018, he had only spent a few days each year within the EU. He argued that the ‘absence’ exception must be interpreted strictly, so that a return to the EU territory for only a few days within each year was sufficient to interrupt the break, and justify the continuation of his LTR status. In his view, it was not necessary to show that he was ‘physically established’ or had his ‘habitual residence’ in the territory. The national court (the Administrative Court of Vienna) was sympathetic to this interpretation, but asked the CJEU questions to confirm it.

In the Court’s view, in the absence of any reference to the national law of Member States, the concept of ‘absence’ had to be ‘regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union…taking into account the wording of that provision, its context, and the purpose of the rules of which it forms part’.

Starting with the wording of the clause, most language versions used a term ‘equivalent’ to ‘absence’. The Court noted that ‘the usual meaning of that term in everyday language’ was ‘the physical ‘non-presence’ of the long-term resident concerned in the territory’ of the EU; hence ‘any physical presence of the person concerned in that territory is capable of interrupting such an absence’. Although the German and Dutch language versions of the Directive used words which implied instead ‘staying or remaining’ on EU territory, ‘and could therefore, depending on the context, imply a more permanent presence than a physical presence of any duration’, those words could also refer to ‘a mere physical non-presence’; and other parts of the German and Dutch language versions of Article 9 did use words ‘which correspond to the concept of ‘absence’’.

Secondly, the context of the Directive provided for the permanence of LTR status, ‘subject to Article 9’. So permanent LTR status was ‘the general rule’, and Article 9 was a ‘derogation’ which must be interpreted ‘strictly’. This ‘suggests that there should not be a broad interpretation of Article 9’, ie it is should not be interpreted to mean that ‘mere physical presence’ was insufficient to interrupt absence from the EU.

Also, the rule on acquisition of LTR status expressly ‘requires the presence of the person concerned in the relevant territory to go beyond a mere physical presence and that it be of a certain duration or have a certain stability’ – ie to ‘reside…legally and continuously for five years immediately prior to the submission of [his or her] application, subject to the periods of absence permitted under Article 4(3) of that directive.’ Details like this are lacking in the provision on loss of status, which ‘in particular’ does not say that ‘the presence of the person concerned in that territory must be of a certain duration or have a certain stability such as’ having ‘his or her habitual residence or centre of interests in that territory’. Nor are there ‘any other conditions relating to the duration or nature of that presence’, such as ‘an ‘actual and authentic link’ with respect to the same territory’, like ‘family members or assets’.

Finally, as for the objective of the Directive, the preamble stated that it aimed at integration of long-term resident non-EU citizens into the territory of the EU, by bringing their status closer to that of EU citizens and ‘establishing equal treatment with the latter in a wide range of economic and social fields’. This supported an interpretation of Article 9 to mean that those who have demonstrated they are sufficiently ‘settled’ to obtain LTR status ‘are, in principle, free, as are EU citizens, to travel and reside, also for longer periods, outside the territory of the European Union, without that thereby entailing the loss of their long-term resident status’, subject to not being absent for 12 consecutive months.

Also, the objective of legal certainty – which the preamble refers to as regards procedural rights – must also apply to the issue of loss of the status (referring to the Commission’s proposal, which stated that the sole grounds of losing LTR status should be listed in the proposal). The Court’s interpretation best met the objective of legal certainty, as the ‘maintenance of’ LTR status was ‘dependent on a clear, precise and predictable criterion relating to a simple objective event’.

Finally, the purpose of the absence rule was to prevent non-EU citizens from keeping LTR status where it no longer served any purpose in achieving the objective of integration.  It referred to the purpose of the parallel clause on the loss of permanent residence status under EU free movement law, ie justification for that loss because ‘the link with the host Member State is loosened’.  Although the free movement Directive and the long-term residence Directive

…differ from one another in terms of their subject matter and objectives, the fact remains that, as the Advocate General also pointed out, in essence, in points 40 to 43 of his Opinion, the provisions of those directives may lend themselves to a comparative analysis and, where appropriate, be interpreted in a similar way, which is justified, in particular in the case of [the provisions on loss due to absence], which are based on the same logic. [para 43]

It followed that the link is loosened only after an absence for 12 consecutive months; and to interrupt that absence, ‘it is sufficient for the long-term national concerned to be present…in the territory of the European Union, even if such presence does not exceed a few days’. This must, however, ‘be distinguished from the situation where there is evidence that such a resident has committed a misuse of rights’, although there was no evidence of such a misuse in this case.

Comments

The Court’s reasoning in this judgment is largely convincing. Its approach to interpreting the wording of the law is consistent with prior judgments, as regards a uniform interpretation under EU law in the absence of a reference to national law, and siding with the majority of language versions – and furthermore, as the Court points out, the German and Dutch language versions do not unambiguously suggest the opposite interpretation either. As for the context of the law, both the ‘interpret the rule widely/interpret derogations strictly’ approach and the a contrario approach (where the drafters wanted to specify there were requirements beyond mere presence on the territory, they expressly did so) are consistent with the Court’s usual canons of interpretation.

On the other hand, its analysis as regards the objective of the Directive is less persuasive. It starts out by referring to the objective of integration, which may point to the opposite interpretation to that which the Court reaches: can it easily be argued that a non-EU citizen who spends only a few days a year on EU territory for a five-year period is still integrated into a Member State’s territory? The Court narrowly avoids painting itself into this corner by framing integration as a form of equality with Member States’ citizens, who can come and go as they please without losing citizenship. But in fact some Member States do withdraw their nationality – and therefore EU citizenship – due to absence, in combination with other factors, and the Court has even ruled on that issue. The comparison with EU free movement law isn’t too convincing, because the Court has not yet ruled on the interruption of absence point in that context. And while the legal certainty point is convincing as far as it goes, it is undercut both by the Court’s lack of clarity on what a ‘few days’ interruption of absence means exactly, and by its creation of a ‘misuse of rights’ exception, which it does not define further except to assert that the exception does not seem to apply in this case.

Are these two points the same – ie a yearly dash through Schiphol airport in transit between Heathrow and New York does not count as interruption of absence? If so, the rule must be further explained. Or are they, as it appears, two different rules? If so, those two rules need to be explained further.

As for the implications of the judgment, it is first and foremost surely logical that this judgment applies to the second method of losing LTR status due to absence, ie by six years’ absence from the Member State that granted the status. It would be very odd to interpret an essentially identical concept appearing in the same Article of the same Directive differently. The judgment also strongly implies that the grounds of loss of status are exhaustive, and that the other grounds for loss of status should be interpreted narrowly. (However, note that in a previous judgment the Court interpreted the ‘fraud’ ground for loss of status broadly, ie it was lost even when the non-EU citizen concerned had not personally committed that fraud). The judgment is not relevant by analogy to periods of absence while accruing the initial five years’ legal residence to obtain an LTR permit, because there is a more specific rule applicable there.

Going outside the LTR Directive, the Court’s judgment explicitly suggests that the rules on absence in free movement law must be interpreted the same way – ie ‘Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host Member State for a period exceeding two consecutive years.’ Due to its close links with free movement law, it is arguable that the absence clause in the Brexit withdrawal agreement should also be interpreted this way (‘Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding 5 consecutive years.’)

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: Uri Baruchin, via wikicommons

 

Self-employed new mothers and EU free movement law: the CJEU delivers the obvious conclusion

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

* For more on EU free movement law issues, see the forthcoming second edition of the commentary on the EU Citizenship Directive, by Elspeth Guild, Steve Peers and Jonathan Tomkin – published soon

What happens when an EU citizen moves to another Member State, and has a baby? New parents likely face some sleepless nights in any event; but should new mothers in particular lose further sleep at the prospect of losing their status under EU free movement law? The CJEU, having ruled on this issues as regards employed new mothers in 2014 (the Saint-Prix judgment, discussed here), has now extended its case law to cover self-employed women who take a maternity break, in its recent judgment in Dakneviciute.

Background

The main EU law on EU citizens’ right to move and reside in another country – often known as the ‘citizens’ Directive’, does not provide for unlimited rights for EU citizens to go and live in another Member States. To exercise free movement rights, EU citizens must be employed, self-employed, students, have sufficient resources, or be a family member of someone in one of those categories (as further defined by the Directive, the EU Treaties, and relevant case law). After five years’ residence in accordance with this EU law, they obtain the right to permanent residence, at which point such conditions no longer apply.

Mothers-to-be who are in paid work as as the baby’s birth approaches often simply take maternity leave from their current employer, and then return to work for that employer some time after the baby is born. This is underpinned by a separate EU law on pregnant workers, which prohibits dismissal of women who are pregnant or on maternity leave save for ‘exceptional cases’ (on these exceptions, see the CJEU judgment in Porras Guisado). Equally, the same law guarantees continuation of an employment contract (except for a possible one-year waiting period to qualify for maternity pay).  In principle this should mean that the women concerned remain workers under free movement law, so they should be at no risk of losing status under that law.

The difficulty is for women who were employed but who gave up their current work before the birth (as in Saint Prix) or who are self-employed (as in Dakneviciute). Do they retain status as workers or self-employed persons under free movement law despite this? The citizens’ Directive says that status is retained in the event of: temporary inability to work ‘as the result of an illness or accident’; involuntary unemployment after being employed more than one year, if registered as a job-seeker; involuntary unemployment after being employed for less than one year, or if a fixed-term contract period of less than a year has ended, if registered as a job-seeker, although retention of status might in these cases only last for six months; or taking up vocational training, which must be linked to the prior employment unless the EU citizen is involuntarily unemployed.

In the Saint Prix case, the EU citizen dropped her teacher training course when she became pregnant, did some short-term work, and then gave up looking for work as the due date for her baby became closer. So she did not qualify under the citizens’ Directive’s rules for retaining worker status. However, the CJEU ruled that those rules were not exhaustive. In the Court’s view, the notion of ‘worker’ came first and foremost from the primary law of the EU Treaties, and covered someone who had previously worked in that State, given up work due to the physical impact of late pregnancy, and returned to work within a ‘reasonable period’ afterward. That period was to be defined taking account of the ‘specific circumstances of the case’, as well as national law on maternity leave, which must be at least 14 weeks in order to comply with the EU law on pregnant workers, although Member States can set longer periods. In fact a later judgment in the UK applied a one-year period in principle to such cases.

Subsequently, in its 2017 judgment in Gusa (which did not concern pregnancy), the CJEU ruled that self-employed EU citizens who became involuntarily no longer self-employed after one year should be treated the same as having retained their self-employed status, on the same basis that workers retain it under the citizens’ Directive in the event of involuntary unemployment.

Facts and judgment

Ms Dakneviciute was employed in the UK, then became a self-employed beauty therapist when she became pregnant. After her baby was born, she briefly returned to self-employment, then briefly claimed benefits, then became employed again. This dispute concerned her eligibility for child benefit: the UK authorities claimed that she did not qualify for it, because she did not have a sufficient right to reside. Uncertain as to whether the Saint Prix judgment applied to the self-employed, even despite the Gusa judgment in the meantime, a UK tribunal asked the CJEU to clarify whether previously self-employed new mothers retained status under free movement by analogy with previously employed new mothers.

The Court ruled that Ms Dakneviciute did retain her status, which meant that she was eligible for child benefit. Previously case law had treated employed and self-employed EU citizens in a unified way; the Saint Prix case applied by analogy; applying Gusa (which had referred to the vulnerability of unemployed EU citizens), pregnant women are vulnerable, whether they are employed or self-employed; and the EU had adopted a law on self-employed pregnant women, which refers to maternity leave on a similar basis as the EU law on pregnant workers.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the UK government’s argument that self-employed women could easily send someone to replace them during a maternity break. This was apparently an interpretation of the Gusa judgment (see paras 21 and 38 of the Dakneviciute judgment), although the Gusa judgment made no point about replacing individual self-employed persons. Finally, as in the Saint Prix judgment, the Court referred to the rules in the citizens’ Directive on obtaining permanent residence, which provide that a single absence of up to one year for pregnancy or childbirth (or other ‘important’ reasons) does not stop the clock as regards obtaining the five years’ residence necessary to qualify for permanent residence.

It followed that a previously self-employed EU citizen new mother retains her status of being self-employed, provided that she returns ‘to the same or another self-employed activity or employment within a reasonable period after the birth of her child’.

Comments

In light of the Saint Prix and Gusa judgments, the Court’s ruling that previously self-employed EU citizen new mothers retain their status is unsurprising.  A non-lawyer might even describe it as a statement of the bleeding obvious. It is striking that the UK government continued to fight the case, including by an interpretation of the Gusa judgment that has no basis in that judgment. Nor does that argument have any basis in the Advocate-General’s opinion in Gusa, which actually conversely said (in paras 72 and 73) that Saint Prix applied by analogy to self-employed persons. With great respect, the UK tribunal should not have given the government's argument the time of day.  

The most pressing practical question for previously self-employed EU citizen new mothers is how to determine the ‘reasonable length of time’ which they have to take up employment or self-employment in order to retain their status. The Court makes no suggestion about how long that might be, perhaps because it was conceded in the national courts that if Ms Dakneviciute retained her free movement status, she had obtained new work within a reasonable period of time (see para 19 of the judgment: perhaps this concession was in light of national case law referred to above). In practice, the EU law on self-employed pregnant women, like the EU law on pregnant workers, refers to a minimum period of 14 weeks, with Member States free to exceed that minimum (as the UK has done). Unlike in Saint Prix the Court does not refer again to also taking account of specific circumstances of the new mother’s case; but since the Court was applying that earlier judgment by analogy, this omission may well be accidental.

What is the impact of Brexit? In the event that the withdrawal agreement is ratified, the citizens’ rights provisions (discussed here) retain existing law (including case law) for UK citizens who move to the EU27, and EU27 citizens who move to the UK, before the end of the transitional period in the agreement (which is end 2020, with a possible extension of one or two years). In the event of leaving the EU without an agreement, the UK could chip away at these rights for EU27 citizens, even if they were already resident before Brexit Day – and EU27 States could do likewise for UK citizens. However, although both of these cases came from the UK courts, they will still be relevant to the remaining Member States (ie Irish citizens moving to Germany) in any event.

Finally, there’s a broader social and historical context to this judgment. The Court expressly mentions the vulnerability of pregnant workers. But new mums in Ms Dakneviciute’s position are also vulnerable as people who are migrant EU citizens, unemployed, and previously lower paid.  The Court’s judgment cuts through this intersectionality of sex, nationality and social class to guarantee access to child benefit regardless. Yet there’s a fin de siècle feeling to this ruling: in six weeks’ time, the UK might be able to disapply it to EU citizens in future. Benefits and unemployed people are obvious targets of the xenophobia that cynical politicians stoke.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13; chapter 20

Photo credit: Coraims

Unemployment, residence rights, social benefits at three crossroads in the Tarola ruling

Francesca Strumia, Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield School of Law*

*This post draws in part on research supported by a Research Fellowship at the Collegio Carlo Alberto in Torino

Overview

Last week’s CJEU ruling in Tarola, responding to a preliminary reference from the Irish Court of Appeal, interprets yet another cryptic provision of the Citizenship Directive, art. 7(3) on retention of worker status. The ruling sits at the intersection of EU law on free movement of workers, and on free movement of citizens. It is about rights descending from the status of worker. Yet it concerns the situation of unemployed persons at the periphery of workers’ status, whose condition stretches into citizenship territory. For these reasons, the case provided an opportunity for the Court to blend the assertive approach of its case law on workers with the cautious attitude it has adopted in its recent case law on non-economically active citizens. The resulting judgment adds yet another chapter to the tormented story of access to social benefits in the context of free movement.

Analysis

Mr. Tarola, a Romanian national, worked in Ireland in either an employed or self-employed capacity for several periods of a few weeks each in 2007, 2013 and 2014. In 2013 and 2014 he applied there for jobseeker’s and welfare allowances. His applications were refused on the ground that absent proof of ability for self-support and absent a sufficiently long employment record he had not demonstrated habitual residence in Ireland. In the resulting litigation, Mr. Tarola argued that he had the right to reside in Ireland for the six months following a two-week period of employment in July 2014 under art. 7(3)(c) of the Citizenship Directive. The argument did not convince the High Court, however it raised attention at the Court of Appeals that referred to the CJEU.

The referred question revolved around the interpretation of article 7(3)(c). More precisely, paraphrasing Advocate General Szpunar, the question was whether a Union citizen who works in another Member States for two weeks otherwise than on a fixed-term contract and then becomes involuntarily unemployed retains the status of worker and the right to residence that comes with that status.

Article 7(3)(c) of the Citizenship Directive is particularly convoluted. It provides for the retention of the status of worker for no less than six months in two hypotheses not clearly distinguished until yesterday’s ruling. The first situation is fairly straightforward: duly recorded unemployment following termination of a fixed-term contract of less than a year in duration. The second is more nebulous. The text refers in this respect to a person having ‘become involuntarily unemployed during the first twelve months’ and having registered as a job-seeker. The court found in particular that the text left two aspects undetermined: (i)  the type of activity or contract in whose context a person became involuntarily unemployed and 2) the context of the ‘first twelve months’ phrase, whether first twelve months of any employment contract, of a fixed-term contract, of residence in the host Member State, or else (par. 35). 

The court’s solution was that the provision allows retention of the status for workers “in all situations in which a worker has been obliged, for reasons beyond his control, to stop working in the host Member State before one year has elapsed, regardless of the nature of the activity or the type of employment contract entered into for that purpose”. (par 48) This interpretation was drawn from the context, purpose and origin of the provision of art. 7(3)(c).

With regard to context, the court noted that the provision sits within article 7, providing overall for the right of residence, and its retention, for all those who have exercise an activity in an employed or self-employed capacity. As affirmed in Prefeta, retention of that right is granted on the assumption that the citizen is available and able to re-enter the labor market within a reasonable period. (par 39-40) The court added that, within the broader context of the gradation of the right to residence that the Citizenship Directive operates, article 7(3) establishes a gradation also for retention of the status of worker. This gradation is based among others on reasons for inability to work and on the initial duration of the period of activity. On the top grade are those citizens who are unable to work because of accident or illness, because of undertaking vocational training, and because of having remained involuntarily unemployed after having worked for at least one year. All of these retain the status without time limits. On a lower grade are those who have worked for less than one year and who can retain the status for as long as the Member States like, provided this is not less than six months. (par 43-45)

In terms of purpose, the court observed that the offered interpretation of art. 7(3)(c) satisfied the general objective of the EU Citizenship Directive, namely strengthening the right of movement and residence, without undermining its further objective of protecting the Member States’ finances from undue burdens. The interpretation was also consistent with the specific objective of article 7(3) of the Directive, described in previous case law (e.g. Gusa) as that of protecting the right of residence of persons “who are in the absence of work due to circumstances beyond their control”. (par 49-50)

Finally as to the origins of art. 7(3)(c) the court found that its reading of the provision mirrored the intention of the drafters. The travaux preparatoires indicated indeed that the second part of art. 7(3)(c) had been added in the draft directive so as to extend protection to workers in involuntary unemployment after less than a year regardless of the type of contract covering their activity. (par 53)

The ruling concluded with a dictum inspired by the AG opinion and with a note to the referring court.  The dictum is that persons residing on the basis of the Citizenship Directive, including those retaining the right to reside under art 7(3), are entitled to equal treatment with nationals. Hence if national workers who have worked only for a short period of time are excluded from social benefits, the exclusion applies also to migrant EU citizen workers. The note to the referring court was that it was accordingly for it to determine, in light of national law, whether Mr Tarola was entitled, under the principle of equal treatment, to the social benefits he was seeking.

Comment

At least three aspects in this judgment are worthy of note. A first one is the way the court treats the citizenship directive. A second one is the court’s note on entitlement to social assistance. A further one is the balancing exercise the ruling performs between protection of movement and residence rights and protection of state finances. These elements, respectively, help situate the judgment at three crossroads: the one between the law on free movement of workers, and the law on free movement of citizens; the one between EU law on equal treatment, and national law on welfare assistance; and the one between competing objectives pursued by EU free movement law.

With regard to the Citizenship Directive, the court sticks to the rule of interpretation it promises up front. The directive cannot be interpreted restrictively. And indeed the court offers a quite broad interpretation of its relevant provision. That the provisions of the Citizenship Directive require broad interpretation is no novelty. The court has repeated this rule of interpretation again and again in several cases. Yet in recent years it has not always as enthusiastically applied the same rule (a recent example is the SM case, treated here; a slightly older one is Singh and others).  The court’s approach in Tarola is the result of a special conjuncture: the court is de facto ruling on the rights of a non-economically active citizen, but it is formally dealing with a worker-it is not in question indeed that Mr. Tarola meets the EU law definition of worker (par. 25)-. This allows the court to intersect, if not the law, the interpretive approaches belonging to two different strands of its case law: the assertiveness of its case law on workers, and the caution of its recent case law on non-economically active citizens.  Echoes of the former allow the court to deliver, from a relative comfort zone, a result that bears on the social protection of Union citizens.

The caution that characterizes the case law on non-economically active returns, on the other hand, through the court’s drawing of a clear boundary between right to equal treatment and entitlement to social assistance. In the final dictum, the court emphasizes that the right attached to a worker’s, or citizen’s, right to residence, is one of equal treatment. Retention of the status of worker, and of the corresponding right to reside, does not necessarily mean entitlement to obtain social assistance. It simply means entitlement to apply for it, and obtain the same response as a national would get. This sounds as a reminder, and a word of reassurance, to the Member States that they are free to organize their welfare systems as they wish. At the same time the court gives the Member States a gentle nudge: if they do not like paying benefits to those who have worked too little, they had better say so in national law.

The gentle nudge to the Member States ultimately reflects the court’s endeavor to take into account, and balance in Tarola, two competing objectives of the Citizenship Directive. One is the objective of strengthening the right to move and reside for all Union citizens (witness to the case standing at the crossroads of workers and citizenship law, the court refers in reporting those objectives to citizens in one sentence, to workers in the next, par 49-50). The other is the objective to ensure that the Member States’ social security and social assistance systems are not placed under an undue burden. The tension between these two objectives underpins the entire case law on social benefits provision in the context of free movement. This brings the Tarola ruling closer to the line of cases that from Trojani descends to Dano and its progeny. The tension in that case law, however, is not always as clearly acknowledged and as carefully addressed as here. In this respect, Tarola might signal a further turn in a doctrine that has experienced several twists. It may be the first sign of the taking on, on the part of the court, of a more coherent role in reconciling the conflicting objectives of the law on free movement.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

Photo credit: BIMIreland.ie

Love wins in the CJEU: Same Sex Marriages and EU free movement law

Professor Steve Peers, Law School, University of Essex

Today’s CJEU judgment in Coman was the Court’s first ruling on same-sex marriages for the purposes of EU free movement law.  (For a discussion of the background, see the earlier blog post by Alina Tryfonidou). Mr Coman, a Romanian citizen, had married his husband, a US citizen, in Belgium while residing there. He tried to return to Romania with his husband, but Romania refused residence to the latter, as (like about half of the EU Member States) it does not recognise same-sex marriage. But did EU free movement law give Mr Coman the right to family reunion with his spouse nonetheless?

In the Court’s view, which took a subtly different approach than the Advocate-General’s opinion, the answer was yes. First of all, following established case law, the Court ruled that EU free movement law doesn't apply directly to a Romanian citizen in Romania and his family member, since the EU citizens’ Directive only applies to EU citizens living in another Member State. However, that law applies by analogy, since Mr Coman had moved to another EU Member State and then returned to his Member State of nationality.

In particular, the Court invoked its 2014 ruling in O and B (discussed here), which clarified when family reunion rights applied in this scenario. It’s necessary to have “genuine residence” in another Member State, meeting the conditions for residence longer than three months set out in the citizens’ Directive (see paras 26 and 28 of today’s judgment).

But was Mr Coman’s American husband within the scope of the definition of “family member”, which includes a “spouse” (a term not further defined in the citizens’ Directive)? The Court reaffirmed its prior case law that a “spouse” was “a person joined to another person by the bonds of marriage”. Crucially, it then ruled that “the term ‘spouse’ within the meaning of” the Directive “is gender-neutral and may therefore cover the same-sex spouse of the Union citizen concerned.” While the Directive expressly permits host Member States to apply their own law when admitting registered partners, it makes no such provision regarding spouses, so such a possibility was implicitly ruled out.

The Advocate-General’s opinion made the same point in a different way, arguing  for a uniform EU-wide meaning of the word “spouse” and taking account of the trend inside and outside the EU toward recognition of same-sex marriage. On one issue, however, the judgment and the opinion differ: the opinion refers to recognition of a marriage wherever it was celebrated (para 49, referring to prior CJEU case law), while the judgment refers several times to a marriage concluded in a Member State (paras 33, 35 and 36).

Anticipating the objections from Member States that do not permit same-sex marriage, the Court reiterated that marital status “is a matter that falls within the competence of the Member States and EU law does not detract from that competence”. In particular, “Member States are thus free to decide whether or not to allow marriage for persons of the same sex”. But that freedom had to be exercised consistently with EU law, in particular the right to free movement. Allowing Member States to apply their own law to the residence of non-EU same sex spouses “would have the effect that the freedom of movement of Union citizens who have already made use of that freedom would vary from one Member State to another, depending on whether such provisions of national law exist”.

Next, the Court dealt with the objections of those Member States who had argued that there were “public policy” or “national identity” grounds to refuse admission of same-sex spouses, where they did not recognise the existence of such a concept in national law. On this point, the Court repeated its case law that the “public policy” exception to free movement has to be interpreted strictly, applying “only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society”. That high threshold was not met here, because recognition of a marriage for these limited purposes “does not undermine the institution of marriage in the first Member State, which is defined by national law”, and “does not require that Member State to provide, in its national law, for the institution of marriage between persons of the same sex”. Rather, it is “confined to the obligation to recognise such marriages, concluded in another Member State in accordance with the law of that state, for the sole purpose of enabling such persons to exercise the rights they enjoy under EU law”. For the same reasons, such an obligation “does not undermine the national identity” of Member States.

The Court added that any measure restricting free movement rights also has to comply with human rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Rights, which has to be interpreted consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, “the relationship of a homosexual couple may fall within the notion of ‘private life’ and that of ‘family life’ in the same way as the relationship of a heterosexual couple in the same situation.”

In light of its judgment on the meaning of “spouse”, the Court had no need to define what a “partner” was, for the purpose of interpreting either the core definition of “family member” or the “extended family member” rules in Article 3 of the Directive. The Advocate-General’s opinion had argued for a Plan B: if Mr Coman’s husband was not a "spouse" due to Romanian law, he had to be considered a partner or other family member under Article 3. In principle there was a downside to that approach, since the CJEU has ruled that there is no right of admission for extended family members (see the judgment in Rahman; also the pending case of Banger, on whether returnees can invoke Article 3 by analogy as regards their extended family members). However, the opinion argued that due to the marital bond recognised by another Member State, there would be no discretion to refuse admission in this case.

Comments

This judgment falls short of the general requirement to establish same-sex marriage recognised in the US Supreme Court judgment in Obergefell. Inevitably so: the CJEU lacks the jurisdiction to rule on the marriage laws of Member States as such. The ruling only applies to free movement issues – and with some further limitations. Nevertheless it will likely be celebrated (or decried) as part of a more general development of extending same-sex marriage rights across (and outside) the EU.

In order to trigger the application of EU free movement law as regards a same sex marriage, there needs to be movement between Member States. So movement within the UK, from jurisdictions in Great Britain (where same sex marriage is recognised) to Northern Ireland (where it is not) will not count. (In any event, in light of Brexit, anyone anxious to have their same sex marriage recognised in Northern Ireland will have to meet the relevant conditions before the end of the post-Brexit transition period: see discussion here). Moreover, the judgment concerns residence, rather than marriage as such. The residence status of a same sex spouse of an EU citizen who is also an EU citizen is unlikely to be disputed.

Furthermore, the Court (unlike the Advocate-General) laid down two further limitations. It restricted its ruling to marriages concluded within a Member State. At best, it could be argued that the legal position where a same sex marriage was celebrated outside the EU was left open by the Court. Secondly, it made a point of emphasising that a period of at least three months genuinely residing in another Member State was necessary to trigger the rules: couples seeking to overcome the restrictions of their national law will have to spend some time abroad in order to do so. A gay Gretna Green – or a lesbian Las Vegas – will have to offer flats to rent, not just rooms for the night.

With these restrictions, and the Court’s obvious concern to answer the anticipated objections of some Member States (and their courts), the ruling may seem rather grudging to those supporting equal marriage. But such a conclusion would be jumping the gun.  Those who have a same-sex registered partnership, or an unregistered partnership within the scope of Article 3 of the Directive, will be able to invoke the judgment’s strong emphasis on free movement and human rights in support of their claims.  The Court could have chosen the easier option offered by the Advocate-General as Plan B – giving same-sex spouses a right to stay on the basis of Article 3, without defining them as a spouse – but it did not.  There’s a case to be made for reassuring – and eventually persuading – the opponents of equal marriage, rather than lecturing and overruling them.

And there’s a broader perspective too, quite apart from the legal technicalities. In light of the history of pink triangles and Stonewall riots, of chemical castration and teenage suicides, of hatred, bigotry and persecution, the right to move across the European Union with a marriage recognised as an equal affirmation of family life can only be welcomed.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13, chapter 9

Photo credit: UK Student Life

Expelling EU citizen war criminals: no sympathy from the ECJ

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

If an EU citizen (or his or her family member) has been excluded from being a refugee, in what circumstances can he or she be expelled from a Member State? The ECJ clarified this issue in its K and HF judgment last week: its first ruling that touches on the relationship between EU (and international) refugee law and EU free movement law.

There’s a good reason why these two areas of law haven’t interacted previously in the Court’s case law: EU law itself tries to keep them apart. A Protocol attached to the EU Treaties, aiming to facilitate the extradition of alleged terrorists between Member States, says that in principle EU citizens cannot apply for asylum in another Member State, due to the presumption in that Protocol that each Member State ensures sufficient human rights protection.

However, there are exceptions to that general rule, and there are people it doesn’t cover. The exceptions in the Protocol are: a) the asylum seeker’s Member State of nationality invokes the “emergency” derogation from parts of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR); b) if the EU Council is considering whether to sanction the asylum seeker’s Member State of nationality for breaches of EU values; c) if the EU has already sanctioned the asylum seeker’s Member State of nationality for breaches of EU values; or d) if a Member State decides to do so unilaterally for another Member State’s national, in which case it must inform the EU Council and presume that the application is manifestly unfounded, without prejudice to the final decision on the application.

The people not covered by the Protocol include: EU citizens who obtained refugee status before they became EU citizens (for instance, because their State of nationality joined the EU); non-EU family members of EU citizens; those who apply for or obtain subsidiary protection status, as distinct from refugee status; and the citizens of some non-EU countries associated with the EU (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein), who have free movement rights but are not EU citizens. The recent ECJ ruling concerned people from the first two of these categories.

Exclusion from being a refugee

Some asylum seekers fail to satisfy the authorities that they meet the definition of “refugee” set out in the UN (Geneva) Refugee Convention. Quite apart from that, some asylum seekers are excluded from being a refugee under that Convention (and under the corresponding provisions of the EU’s qualification Directive), because their behaviour is considered so reprehensible that they do not deserve fully-fledged international protection, even if they are facing persecution on one of the grounds set out in the Convention. More precisely, Article 1.F of the Convention excludes:

any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The ECJ has interpreted the exclusion clause in the EU qualification Directive in its judgments in B and D and Lounani (discussed here), ruling inter alia that the second and third exclusion clauses can apply to terrorist offences, although exclusion must be assessed in each individual case, meaning that membership of a group listed as “terrorist” in EU foreign policy sanctions against terrorists does not automatically trigger the exclusion clause. Similarly, participating in a terrorist group, as defined by EU criminal law on terrorism, does not automatically trigger the exclusion clause either. Instead, there must be direct involvement by the person concerned in such offences, as further explained by the Court. Furthermore, there is no additional “proportionality” or “present danger” test for exclusion, and the exclusion clause is mandatory: ie Member States cannot assert a right to apply higher standards and give someone refugee status if they fall within the exclusion criteria. Finally, assisting with recruitment, organisation or transport of “foreign fighters” can also lead to exclusion, as it constitutes a form of “participation” in the terrorist acts covered by the exclusion clause.

However, it should be noted that even if a person is excluded from being a refugee, they are still protected against being removed to a country where they would face a real risk of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, according to the case law on Article 3 ECHR and the corresponding Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ECJ reaffirmed as much recently in its judgment in MP (discussed here). But this non-removal obligation falls short of refugee status (which usually follows from recognition as a refugee) because it does not entail a fully-fledged immigration status including rights like access to employment and benefits.

Expelling EU citizens and their family members

The grounds for restricting free movement rights for reasons of “public policy or public security” are set out in the EU citizens’ Directive. The basic rule is that restrictions “shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.” Furthermore, “[t]he personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.”

Before expelling a person covered by the Directive on such grounds, Member States are obliged to “take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin.” For those with permanent residence, there is a higher threshold to justify expulsion: “serious grounds of public policy or public security”. And for those who have resided in that Member State for the previous ten years, or who are minors, the threshold for expulsion is higher still: “imperative grounds of public security”.

The judgment

The Court’s judgment brought together two separate cases. In the first case, K, a dual citizen of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, had arrived in the Netherlands and applied for asylum in 2001 and 2011. Both applications were rejected. Subsequently, after Croatia joined the EU in 2013, the applicant was declared (in light of his EU citizenship) to be an “undesirable immigrant”, in light of the prior finding that he knew about and participated in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Bosnian army. Since over twenty years had passed since that time, the issue was whether such conduct was a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” within the meaning of the EU citizens’ Directive, taking account of the other factors referred to in the Directive.

In the second case, HF, an Afghan citizen excluded from being a refugee in the Netherlands, applied for a residence card in Belgium as the family member of an EU citizen (his Dutch daughter). His application was refused on the basis that the information about his exclusion, which the Dutch authorities had shared with their Belgian counterparts, showed that he could be denied free movement rights.

The Court first examined whether exclusion from being a refugee necessarily met the standard for restriction of free movement rights. It recalled its prior case law, holding that “public security” could include both internal security (including “a direct threat to the peace of mind and physical security of the population of the Member State concerned”) and external security (including “the risk of a serious disturbance to the foreign relations of that Member State or to the peaceful coexistence of nations”). Applying these principles to the facts, the Court accepted that Member States could consider that damage to international relations, the risk of contacting EU citizens who had been victims of war crimes could be considered threats to public policy and public security. Restricting those persons’ free movement rights could also contribute to ensuring “protection of the fundamental values of society in a Member State and of the international legal order and to maintaining social cohesion, public confidence in the justice and immigration systems of the Member States and the credibility of their commitment to protect the fundamental values enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 TEU”.  The Court added that the acts and crimes which led to exclusion from being a refugee “seriously undermine both fundamental values such as respect for human dignity and human rights, on which, as stated in Article 2 TEU, the European Union is founded, and the peace which it is the Union’s aim to promote, under Article 3 TEU”.

Nevertheless, the Court ruled that exclusion from being a refugee should not always lead to restriction on free movement rights. There must still be a “case-by-case assessment” which shows that “the personal conduct of the individual concerned currently constitutes a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society”. This assessment must “take into account the findings of fact made in the decision of exclusion from refugee status taken with respect to the individual concerned and the factors on which that decision was based, in particular the nature and gravity of the crimes or acts that that individual is alleged to have committed, the degree of his individual involvement in them and the possible existence of grounds for excluding criminal liability such as duress or self-defence.” Furthermore, that examination “is all the more necessary” if, such as in these cases, “the person concerned has not been convicted of the crimes or acts that were relied on to justify the rejection, in the past, of his asylum application”.

The Court showed willingness to relax its usual insistence of looking closely at the EU citizen’s present threat, noting that in some cases “it is also possible that past conduct alone may constitute such a threat to the requirements of public policy”. In the case of war crimes, although “the time that has elapsed since the assumed commission of those acts is, indeed, a relevant factor….the possible exceptional gravity of the acts in question may be such as to require, even after a relatively long period of time, that the genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society be classified as persistent”. Equally, the Court de-emphasised the requirement that the person concerned was likely to reoffend, ruling that:

…however improbable it may appear that such crimes or acts may recur outside their specific historical and social context, conduct of the individual concerned that shows the persistence in him of a disposition hostile to the fundamental values enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 TEU, such as human dignity and human rights, as revealed by those crimes or those acts, is, for its part, capable of constituting a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society...

Yet the person’s rights to private and family life and the principle of proportionality still had to be weighed against such threats.

Next, the Court reiterated that an expulsion decision has to consider “with due regard to the principle of proportionality…inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in the host Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with the host Member State.”

Yet the lengthy period of time spent on the territory in the Dutch case was not enough to qualify for the especially high level of protection against expulsion for EU citizens resident for ten years (“imperative grounds of public security”). For as the Court had recently ruled in B and Vomero, such special status was only attainable if the person concerned had already qualified for permanent residence (based on five years’ legal residence); and residence on national law grounds other than those set out in the citizens’ Directive or its predecessor laws did not count to that end (see Ziolkowski). It appeared that K could not show residence on an EU law basis, but only a national law basis, and therefore was not going to qualify for any extra degree of protection against expulsion.

Comments

The Court’s judgment is focussed on those excluded from refugee status on the basis of Article 1.F of the Refugee Convention. The wording of the ruling does not confine itself to the “war criminal” ground of exclusion, and so it applies to persons excluded from being a refugee on any of the Article 1.F grounds. It should logically be relevant if any EU law issues are raised about handing over any person to the International Criminal Court, or any ad hoc UN criminal tribunal, for prosecution for war crimes et al. But does it have any broader application?

First of all, it definitely applies to those who might apply for refugee status on what might be called the “Palestinian track” set out in Article 1.D of the Convention, since the general rules on exclusion also apply to such cases: see the ECJ’s El Kott judgment (para 76).

Secondly, it is questionable whether it applies to all cases of exclusion from subsidiary protection status, given that such exclusion is also possible for less serious behaviour than as regards refugee recognition. In particular, the qualification Directive allows for exclusion from subsidiary protection status on grounds of a “serious crime”, or in fact any crime which would be punishable by imprisonment in the Member State concerned.

Thirdly, it may be arguable whether the judgment is relevant by analogy to revoking refugee status due to criminal behaviour or a security risk (relevant in pending ECJ cases, discussed here), or to refusing a residence permit or travel document on national security or public order grounds, where the ECJ has ruled that a lower threshold applies (see the ruling in HT, discussed here).

Next, the judgment might be relevant to cases where a Member State seeks to revoke its nationality (and therefore EU citizenship) from a person, for instance due to their activities as a “foreign fighter”. (On the reviewability of such decisions as a matter of EU law, see Rottmann and the pending case of Tjebbes).

Could the judgment even be relevant by analogy to “ordinary” EU citizens, where there is no link to refugee law issues? At first sight no, because the Court’s focus is on the Refugee Convention’s exclusion clause. However, its willingness to consider that especially vile prior behaviour can outweigh an assessment of present threat and likely future conduct could arguably be relevant where an EU citizen has been convicted of crimes such as child abuse, rape, murder, or terrorism.

The judgment continues the Court’s established trend of disdain for criminality by EU citizens or their family members. In this case, its concern for crime victims is particularly striking; but here it strikes a discordant note in referring only to the victims of war criminals who are EU criminals living in EU Member States. For this overlooks the likely existence also of non-EU victims, both those who sought protection in a Member State and those in the war criminal’s state of origin, if he or she is referred there. Or rather, the surviving victims: the returning war criminals will likely cast a long shadow over the graves of those whom they murdered.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Human Rights Watch

Dual citizens and EU citizenship: clarification from the ECJ

Professor Steve Peers

One of the basic rules of EU free movement law is that in principle it can only be invoked by EU citizens who are in a Member State other than their Member State of nationality. As a corollary, those EU citizens who are in the Member State of which they are a national cannot invoke free movement law – although ECJ case law in some cases allows them to claim rights on the basis of their EU citizenship instead.

So what happens if someone is a citizen of two Member States? If they are living in one of those two States, at first sight they are Schrodinger’s EU citizen: simultaneously entitled to free movement rights (as they are in a Member State other than their Member State of nationality) and not entitled to those rights (as they are in the Member State of which they are a national). In its 2011 judgment in McCarthy, the ECJ ruled that a dual citizen of two Member States (the UK and Ireland) who had not moved from the UK could not claim rights based on free movement law or EU citizenship. But did that finding rest on the mere fact that Ms McCarthy was a dual citizen of two Member States – or rather upon the fact that she was a dual citizen who had not moved between Member States?

Yesterday’s ECJ judgment in Lounes has clarified this important point. (On the background to the ruling, see Alina Tryfonidou’s analysis). It concerned a Spanish citizen who moved to the UK, who then gained UK nationality and married a non-EU citizen. She invoked free movement rights so that he could stay with her, but the UK government, having changed its law after the McCarthy ruling, argued that she was subject not to EU law, but to the more restrictive family reunion rules applicable to UK citizens.

The ECJ ruled that she was not entitled to invoke the free movement rights (including the family reunion rules) in the EU citizens’ Directive, since she was now a UK citizen in the UK. However, the Court said that she could invoke her EU citizenship based on the Treaties: for that purpose she was still regarded as a Spanish citizen who had moved within the EU. While the Treaty citizenship provisions, unlike the citizens’ Directive, contain no specific rules on family members, the Court said that she should be treated no less favourably than those covered by the Directive, as it would be unjust to treat her worse than a Spanish citizen who had moved to the UK and not acquired UK nationality.

In effect, dual citizens of two Member States who move within the EU therefore form another exception to the rule that EU citizens cannot claim free movement or citizenship rights against their Member State of nationality. They join: EU citizens who move to another Member State and return home (Surinder Singh); EU citizens who live in their State of nationality but who take up economic activity outside it (Carpenter); and EU citizens who live in their State of nationality but would be compelled to leave the EU if their non-EU parent is expelled (Ruiz Zambrano). (The ECJ most recently clarified the status of the first two categories in two 2014 rulings, which Chiara Berneri discussed here; and it most recently clarified Ruiz Zambrano cases in a spring 2017 ruling, which I discussed here).

Comments

The Court’s ruling in Lounes raises several questions. First of all, does it apply only where the EU citizen acquired the second nationality after moving to that second Member State? At first sight, the Court’s ruling suggests this. But it would be odd to deny the same rights to those who gained the second nationality earlier, upon marriage to a national of that second Member State, or to those who have had two nationalities since birth, for instance because: their parents have different nationalities; or they were born in one Member State but one or both parents is a national of another Member State; or they obtained both UK and Irish nationality because they were born in Northern Ireland. Of course, in each of those scenarios, the dual citizen would still need to move within the EU to invoke the EU citizenship rights.

What about those who lost the citizenship of one Member State when they acquired the nationality of another one? The earlier case of Scholz suggests that they, too, keep rights – although that case was decided on free movement rather than citizenship rights.

For dual citizens covered by Lounes, do all the rights derived from the citizens’ directive apply by analogy? A particular issue arises with acquiring permanent residence, where the Court previously suggested in Alarape that only those covered by the citizens’ Directive as such could gain permanent residence. (While gaining permanent residence would be irrelevant to Ms. Lounes as a citizen of the UK, it would be important to establish whether her non-EU husband could obtain that status). But that case concerned a comparison between those covered by the EU citizens’ Directive and those covered by a separate Regulation, not those covered by the Treaties. And in Lounes, the Court insisted upon the citizens’ Directive applying by analogy. So it is arguable that the permanent residence rules still apply. (See also the argument on this made in the Free Movement blog).

Finally, what happens after Brexit, for dual citizens of the UK and another Member State? For those who moved before Brexit Day, it will be important to ascertain whether the withdrawal agreement (if there is one) fully guarantees the continuation of ECJ case law on this issue, given that family reunion is still a disputed issue between the UK and EU27 sides. For those who arrive within a transition period (if one is agreed), the issue will be whether the withdrawal agreement also guarantees the full application of EU laws and case law to them. For those who arrive after that transition period ends, the issue will be whether the UK has made any commitments at all on this issue, or whether UK law only will apply – in which case more restrictive family reunion rules will apply. If there is no deal on this issue between the UK and EU27, then the UK’s more restrictive rules will apply – unless those rules change as a consequence of an election that might then follow. (Note that UK citizens living in Spain cannot obtain Spanish nationality at present).

Those who have two nationalities already, and who fall in love with someone who has a third nationality, inevitably bring out the greatest tension between the arid dictates of immigration law and the human need of family members to live their lives together. It remains to be seen whether those whom EU law has joined together, will be split asunder by Brexit. 

JHA4: chapter I:6

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27, chapter 13

Photo credit: thinkSPAIN