Advanced

Utvisning av EU-medborgare på grund av brott – en empirisk studie av underrättspraxis mot bakgrund av den fria rörligheten inom EU

Westerman Wood, Harold LU (2016) LAGM01 20152
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den fria rörligheten för personer är en av EU:s grundpelare. Från att endast ha tillkommit arbetstagare har rätten till fri rörlighet utvidgats genom praxis från EUD. Denna praxis har gradvist kodifierats och rätten tillförsäkras nu samtliga unionsmedborgare genom rörlighetsdirektivet. Rätten är dock inte oinskränkt. Medlemsstaterna får begränsa den fria rörligheten med hänsyn till allmän ordning, säkerhet och hälsa. Utvisning (på grund av brott) är en särskilt ingripande inskränkning i den fria rörligheten som kan få stora konsekvenser för den enskilda unionsmedborgaren.

Möjligheterna att utvisa unionsmedborgare med hänsyn till allmän ordning och säkerhet ska enligt EU-rätten tolkas restriktivt. Begreppet allmän ordning och säkerhet... (More)
Den fria rörligheten för personer är en av EU:s grundpelare. Från att endast ha tillkommit arbetstagare har rätten till fri rörlighet utvidgats genom praxis från EUD. Denna praxis har gradvist kodifierats och rätten tillförsäkras nu samtliga unionsmedborgare genom rörlighetsdirektivet. Rätten är dock inte oinskränkt. Medlemsstaterna får begränsa den fria rörligheten med hänsyn till allmän ordning, säkerhet och hälsa. Utvisning (på grund av brott) är en särskilt ingripande inskränkning i den fria rörligheten som kan få stora konsekvenser för den enskilda unionsmedborgaren.

Möjligheterna att utvisa unionsmedborgare med hänsyn till allmän ordning och säkerhet ska enligt EU-rätten tolkas restriktivt. Begreppet allmän ordning och säkerhet ska tolkas enhetligt inom unionen. Visst skönsmässigt utrymme lämnas dock till medlemsstaterna att bestämma den precisa innebörden för begreppen i den nationella tillämpningen.

I Sveriges initiala implementering av rörlighetsdirektivet utelämnades många av de genom direktivet kodifierade tolkningsprinciperna och rekvisiten, med hänvisning till att de redan tillhörde gällande rätt. Efter kritik från EU-kommissionen genomfördes dock år 2014 en lagändring genom vilken nämnda principer och rekvisit infördes i utlänningslagen. Lagändringen behandlade dock inte området för Sveriges skönsmässiga utveckling av begreppet allmän ordning och säkerhet nämnvärt, vilket lett till ett bestämmandevakuum i gällande rätt.

HD har genom NJA 2014 s. 415 till viss del fyllt detta vakuum. I flera avseenden återstår dock frågetecken kring hur reglerna ska tillämpas. Dessa frågetecken har lämnats till underrätterna att besvara. Mot denna bakgrund har i uppsatsen samtliga underrättsdomar sedan lagändringen 2014 som behandlar utvisningsyrkanden gentemot unionsmedborgare i samband med brottmål granskats. Resultatet av undersökningen visar att underrätterna i långt ifrån obetydlig utsträckning helt utelämnar de särskilda regler som gäller för EU-medborgare vid utvisning på grund av brott. I många fall saknas även konstateranden om att rörlighetsdirektivets och utlänningslagens rekvisit är uppfyllda och/eller motiveringar till varför så är fallet. Vidare ifrågasätts i uppsatsen om vissa faktorer såsom brottets allvarlighetsgrad och utlänningens tidigare brottslighet ges betydelse utöver vad som är riktigt till den grad att det i vissa fall strider mot EU-rätten. Dessa brister beror på och leder till ett fortsatt oklart rättsläge. Vidare orsakas bristerna i tillämpningen enligt uppsatsen delvis av att den svenska lagstiftaren inte i tillräcklig utsträckning utnyttjat sin skönsmässiga bestämmanderätt över begreppet allmän ordning och säkerhet, och att HD endast gjort så i begränsad utsträckning. Detta beror i sin tur på otydligheten i den unionsrättsliga uppdelningen av bestämmanderätten över begreppet.

Sammanfattningsvis leder bristerna till en brist på transparens i rättstillämpningen, vilket i förlängningen leder till nedsatt förutsebarhet och rättssäkerhet och stundtals mot EU-rätten stridande rättstillämpning. I uppsatsen argumenteras för att bristerna lämpligen bör avhjälpas genom en lagändring eller vidare rättsutveckling från HD. Mot bakgrund av att en lagändring ter sig högst oaktuell med hänsyn till den relativt nyligen genomförda ändringen av utlänningslagen framstår fortsatta prejudikat från HD som den mest sannolika lösningen. (Less)
Abstract
The free movement of persons is a keystone within the EU. At first only ascribed to workers, the right to free movement has gradually been extended through ECJ case law. After codification all EU citizens are now eligible for free movement within the Union through the Citizen Rights Directive. However, the right is not absolute. The member states may limit free movement rights on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Expulsion (due to criminal acts) is an especially interfering form of restriction of the right to free movement with possibly far-reaching consequences for the individual EU citizen concerned.

The possibilities to expel EU citizens on the grounds of public policy or public security are to be... (More)
The free movement of persons is a keystone within the EU. At first only ascribed to workers, the right to free movement has gradually been extended through ECJ case law. After codification all EU citizens are now eligible for free movement within the Union through the Citizen Rights Directive. However, the right is not absolute. The member states may limit free movement rights on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Expulsion (due to criminal acts) is an especially interfering form of restriction of the right to free movement with possibly far-reaching consequences for the individual EU citizen concerned.

The possibilities to expel EU citizens on the grounds of public policy or public security are to be interpreted and applied restrictively. The terms public policy and public security shall have a uniform interpretation within the Union. Nevertheless, some discretionary powers have been left for the member states to interpret the meaning of the terms in the national application.

Sweden’s initial implementation of the Citizen Rights Directive omitted many of the principles of interpretation and necessary conditions codified through the Directive, as they were seen as already part of the law of the land. After criticism from the European Commission an amendment of the law was made in 2014, including mentioned principles and conditions. However, the amendment did not exercise Sweden’s discretionary powers to finalise the national meaning of the terms public policy and public security, leaving a power vacuum in the applicable law.

The Swedish Supreme Court (HD) has somewhat filled that vacuum through its ruling in NJA 2014 s. 415. Despite this, several questions remain unanswered regarding the interpretation and application of the rules in question. Essentially, these questions have been left to the lower courts to answer. With regards to this, all Swedish lower court cases involving motions for expulsion of a Union Citizen since the law amendment 2014 are examined within the scope of this thesis. The result shows that lower courts, in far from insignificant numbers, omit the specific rules concerning EU citizens with regards to expulsion due to criminal acts. Many of the cases lack explicit establishments that the necessary conditions in the Citizen Rights Directive and the Swedish Aliens Act are met, as well as motivations on why those conditions are met. Furthermore, the thesis questions whether some factors, such as the seriousness of the crime and the EU citizens past criminal convictions, are relied upon for expulsion decisions to an extension and in a manner that in some cases is contrary to EU law. These deficiencies are caused by and lead to a continuously indistinct legal situation. According to the thesis, the faults in the application of the law can partly be explained by the Swedish legislator’s (and to some extent HD’s) failure to sufficiently execute its discretionary powers to define the ultimate meaning of the term public policy and public security. This, in turn, is caused by Union law's unclear separation of power to define the terms public policy and public security between the EU and its member states.

In conclusion, the application deficiencies cause a lack of legal transparency, in turn leading to reduced foreseeability and legal security as well as an application of law occasionally contrary to EU law. It is argued in the thesis that the deficiencies should be remedied through a law amendment or new case law from HD. Taken into account that a law amendment has been made as late as in 2014, continuous case law from HD seems the most likely solution. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Westerman Wood, Harold LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Expulsion of EU citizens due to criminal acts – an empirical study of lower court case law in light of the free movement within the EU
course
LAGM01 20152
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
migrationsrätt, straffrätt, offentlig rätt, utvisning på grund av brott, EU-rätt, fri rörlighet, allmän ordning och säkerhet, underrättspraxis
language
Swedish
id
8514274
date added to LUP
2016-02-04 13:42:59
date last changed
2017-01-27 14:26:09
@misc{8514274,
  abstract     = {The free movement of persons is a keystone within the EU. At first only ascribed to workers, the right to free movement has gradually been extended through ECJ case law. After codification all EU citizens are now eligible for free movement within the Union through the Citizen Rights Directive. However, the right is not absolute. The member states may limit free movement rights on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Expulsion (due to criminal acts) is an especially interfering form of restriction of the right to free movement with possibly far-reaching consequences for the individual EU citizen concerned.

The possibilities to expel EU citizens on the grounds of public policy or public security are to be interpreted and applied restrictively. The terms public policy and public security shall have a uniform interpretation within the Union. Nevertheless, some discretionary powers have been left for the member states to interpret the meaning of the terms in the national application.

Sweden’s initial implementation of the Citizen Rights Directive omitted many of the principles of interpretation and necessary conditions codified through the Directive, as they were seen as already part of the law of the land. After criticism from the European Commission an amendment of the law was made in 2014, including mentioned principles and conditions. However, the amendment did not exercise Sweden’s discretionary powers to finalise the national meaning of the terms public policy and public security, leaving a power vacuum in the applicable law.

The Swedish Supreme Court (HD) has somewhat filled that vacuum through its ruling in NJA 2014 s. 415. Despite this, several questions remain unanswered regarding the interpretation and application of the rules in question. Essentially, these questions have been left to the lower courts to answer. With regards to this, all Swedish lower court cases involving motions for expulsion of a Union Citizen since the law amendment 2014 are examined within the scope of this thesis. The result shows that lower courts, in far from insignificant numbers, omit the specific rules concerning EU citizens with regards to expulsion due to criminal acts. Many of the cases lack explicit establishments that the necessary conditions in the Citizen Rights Directive and the Swedish Aliens Act are met, as well as motivations on why those conditions are met. Furthermore, the thesis questions whether some factors, such as the seriousness of the crime and the EU citizens past criminal convictions, are relied upon for expulsion decisions to an extension and in a manner that in some cases is contrary to EU law. These deficiencies are caused by and lead to a continuously indistinct legal situation. According to the thesis, the faults in the application of the law can partly be explained by the Swedish legislator’s (and to some extent HD’s) failure to sufficiently execute its discretionary powers to define the ultimate meaning of the term public policy and public security. This, in turn, is caused by Union law's unclear separation of power to define the terms public policy and public security between the EU and its member states.

In conclusion, the application deficiencies cause a lack of legal transparency, in turn leading to reduced foreseeability and legal security as well as an application of law occasionally contrary to EU law. It is argued in the thesis that the deficiencies should be remedied through a law amendment or new case law from HD. Taken into account that a law amendment has been made as late as in 2014, continuous case law from HD seems the most likely solution.},
  author       = {Westerman Wood, Harold},
  keyword      = {migrationsrätt,straffrätt,offentlig rätt,utvisning på grund av brott,EU-rätt,fri rörlighet,allmän ordning och säkerhet,underrättspraxis},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Utvisning av EU-medborgare på grund av brott – en empirisk studie av underrättspraxis mot bakgrund av den fria rörligheten inom EU},
  year         = {2016},
}