Talk:Citizens' Rights Directive

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Meaning of 'Directive'[edit]

The text explains what a directive is under Implementation and links to the correspdoning article. Still, I feel that this should be explained in the intro: must be tranposed into national legislation, cannot be denied by a member state, and is granted automatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.79.162.143 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five member states[edit]

There is a link on "Five member states" in the Case Law section which is dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Internal_movement_for_family_members_of_EEA_nationals). I will remove the dead link but am leaving this here if anyone sees it and has time to look into and fix this in a better way. Sorry, and thanks. Margaridas (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that the UK is in breach of the directive[edit]

The section on the UK currently contains claims based on original research interpreting sources that do not verify the claims made. The issue in question is, I believe, still before the European Court of Justice. As I understand it, the UK government interpretation of EU law is based on the UK Schengen opt-out, the text of Article 1 of Protocol 20 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union being quoted at European Economic Area Family Permit as follows:

"The United Kingdom shall be entitled, notwithstanding Articles 26 and 77 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, any other provision of that Treaty or of the Treaty on European Union, any measure adopted under those Treaties, or any international agreement concluded by the Union or by the Union and its Member States with one or more third States, to exercise at its frontiers with other Member States such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it may consider necessary for the purpose:

(a) of verifying the right to enter the United Kingdom of citizens of Member States and of their dependants exercising rights conferred by Union law, as well as citizens of other States on whom such rights have been conferred by an agreement by which the United Kingdom is bound; and

(b) of determining whether or not to grant other persons permission to enter the United Kingdom."

As long as this has not been decided by a competent court of law, Wikipedia has no business claiming a breach of EU law. --Boson (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to home country clarification[edit]

In the article the paragraph reads:

the ECJ rules that a worker can bring his spouse back to his home country after working in another EEA state for at least 6 months. However, this judgement was based on previous legislation, and it is unclear whether it also applies to more recent treaty rights. The case of C-456/12 clarifies the directive. An EEA citizen can go to another state and exercise freedom of movement under Article 21(1) TFEU, the right to free movement, there is no requirement to be a worker or self-employed. The EEA citizen and his non-EEA partner can return to his/her home state after a period of residence in a host state for longer than 3 months providing they have created or strengthened a family tie.

Should the section on the Singh case be edited since it is made clear in C-456/12 that the Singh judgement 'does' apply to more recent treaty rights? As the article stands it reads as a contradiction or as two separate elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananarama10101 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

This article is now the first placed result on Google for "Citizens' Rights Directive". While the second, third, fourth and fifth results refer to the "Citizens' Rights Directive" as Directive 2009/136/EC which concerns IT / telecommunications. The sixth and seventh talk about the free movement directive, and then the eight, ninth, and tenth again refer to IT / telecommunications angle.

At best the new title is vague. At worst it's an entirely different piece of legislation. On reflection the old title, "Free Movement of Citizens Directive", wasn't much good either as it gets a mere 692 results on Google. In addition the directive grants free movement to citizens and their non-citizen family members."Free Movement Directive" gets 7,440 results so I think I'll go ahead and move the article there. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]