DOCSLIB.ORG

Living in Another Member State: Barriers to EU Citizens' Full Enjoyment of Their Rights – Germany 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Living in Another Member State: Barriers to EU Citizens' Full Enjoyment of Their Rights – Germany 2017 Living in another Member State: barriers to EU citizens' full enjoyment of their rights Germany 2017 Contractor: German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) Author: Dr. Maren Burkhardt Reviewed by: Dr. Petra Follmar-Otto DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under contract as background material for comparative analysis by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the project ‘Living in another Member State: barriers to EU citizens' full enjoyment of their rights‘. The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA. The document is made publicly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. 1 Contents 1. Table 1 – Case law ....................................................................... 3 2. Table 2 – Overview ..................................................................... 56 2 1. Table 1 – Case law X1) non-discrimination on grounds of nationality ☐2) freedom of movement and residence 1. - linked to which article of Directive 2004/38 Subject matter ☐ 3) voting rights concerned ☐ 4) diplomatic protection ☐ 5) the right to petition Decision date 17 February 2014 Deciding body Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) (in original language) Deciding body Federal Constitutional Court (in English) Case number 2 BvQ 4/14 (also European ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:qk20140217.2bvq000414 Case Law Identifier (ECLI) where applicable) Parties Applicant (Italian national) Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) 3 Web link to the decision (if www.bverfg.de/e/qk20140217_2bvq000414.html available) Legal basis in Articles 3 (1) and 16 (2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz, GG). national law of the rights under dispute Key facts of US authorities requested the extradition of the applicant, an Italian national, for the prosecution of offences the case (max. under Title 15 of the United States Code. This was based on an arrest warrant and a prosecution of a Grand 500 chars) Jury of August 2010. The applicant was arrested while entering Germany at Frankfurt am Main airport in 2013.The OLG Frankfurt ordered provisional arrest pending extradition on 24 June 2013. After having received the formal extradition request, the OLG Frankfurt declared the applicant’s extradition to be permissible on 22 January 2014. The applicant applied for a preliminary injunction before the BVerfG on 6 February 2014 to prevent extradition. The court defeated the motion on 17 February 2014. Main reasoning The applicant argued that Article 16 (2) of the GG was applicable not only to German but also to EU nationals, / since a different interpretation would infringe on Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European argumentation Union (TFEU). (max. 500 The court argued that the decision of the OLG Frankfurt to extradite an Italian national did not constitute chars) inequality in the sense of Article 3 of the GG. It was constitutional that Article 16 (2) of the GG only provided for protection against extradition to foreign countries for German nationals. This also constituted no violation of Article 18 of the TFEU because extraditions to third countries did not fall within the scope of application of the Law of the European Union. Therefore, there was also no need to request the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to give a preliminary ruling. Key issues The Federal Constitutional Court has, in this decision, confirmed a former decision (see BVerfG, Decision (concepts, 2BvR1347/08 of 28 July 2008) and has therefore reaffirmed that the protection of Article 16 (2) of the GG interpretations against extradition to foreign countries applies only to German nationals. 4 ) clarified by the case (max. 500 chars) Results (e.g. The applicant was extradited to the USA and sentenced to a two year prison sentence. After having served this sanctions) and sentence, he applied for compensation to the District Court of Berlin (Landgericht, LG). The LG Berlin key suspended the procedure with its Decision of 18 March 2016 and requested the CJEU to give a preliminary consequences ruling. The LG argued that Article 16 (2) of the GG was applicable to non-German nationals. The case is still or implications pending. The decision of the BVerfG has thereby been called into question by a lower court. Both the decision of the case of the BVerfG and the LG Berlin have, however, issued their decisions prior to the decision of the CJEU in the (max. 500 case Petruhhin v. Latvijas Republikas Generalprokuratura of 6 September 2016 chars) Key quotations „Die Annahme des Oberlandesgerichts, das Deutschenprivileg aus Art. 16 Abs.2 Satz 1 GG müsse nicht auf in original Unionsbürger angewandt werden, ist verfassungsrechtlich unbedenklich. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat language and bereits entschieden, dass der Auslieferungsverkehr mit Drittstaaten keine Materie ist, die in den sachlichen translated into Anwendungsbereich des Unionsrechts fällt, und das europarechtliche Diskriminierungsverbot daher in diesem English with Zusammenhang nicht zu berücksichtigen ist“(See BVerfG, Decision 2 BvQ 4/14 of 17 February 2017, para. 22). reference details (max. Translation: 500 chars) The OLG’s assumption that the privilege for German nationals in Article 16 (2) of the GG is not to be applied to EU citizens is constitutional. The Constitutional Court has already decided previously that extraditions to third countries do not fall within the scope of application of the Law of the European Union. The European right to non-discrimination on grounds of nationality is therefore not to be considered in this context. 5 Has the No. deciding body referred to the Charter of Fundamental Rights? If yes, to which specific article. X 1) non-discrimination on grounds of nationality ☐ 2) freedom of movement and residence 2. - linked to which article of Directive 2004/38 Subject matter ☐ 3) voting rights concerned ☐ 4) diplomatic protection ☐ 5) the right to petition Decision date 16 November 2016 Deciding body Verwaltungsgerichtshof Hessen (VGH) (in original language) Deciding body Higher Administrative Court of Hessen (in English) 6 Case number 9 A 242/15 (also European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) where applicable) Parties Bulgarian national Local aliens’ registration office (Ausländerbehörde) Web link to the decision (if www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de/lexsoft/default/hessenrecht_lareda.html#docid:7731309 available) Legal basis in Sections 28, 30 and 44 of the German Act on the Residence, Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in national law of the Federal Territory Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz, AufenthG), and Sections 2, 4a, 5 and 11 of the German the rights Act on the General Freedom of Movement for EU Citizens (Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU, FreizügG/EU) (for the old under dispute version of the code covering the period until 23 June 2011, see www.buzer.de/gesetz/4720/al28677-0.htm). Key facts of The claimant applied for the issuance of a residence card for EU citizens according to Section 5 of the the case (max. FreizügG/EU. According to Section 5 of the FreizügG/EU, the claimant had to prove that she was entitled to a 500 chars) right of entry and residence according to Section 2 (1) FreizügG/EU. According to Section 2 (1) of the FreizügG/EU, EU citizens and their dependants entitled to freedom of movement shall have the right to enter and reside in the federal territory. Section 2 (2) of the FreizügG/EU establishes which persons are entitled to freedom of movement, for instance EU citizens who wish to reside in the federal territory as employees (No.1). Section 2 of the FreizüG/EU does not require EU citizens to provide proof of knowledge of the German language. The decision does not mention on which grounds a right of entry and residence was claimed. But the decision mentions that the claimant was receiving unemployment benefits at that time. The authorities, therefore, announced the loss of the entitlement to entry and residence and only issued a residence card after 7 the claimant had started working. After having married a German national, the claimant additionally applied for a residence permit according to Section 28 (1), No. 1 of the AufenthG. Section 28 (1,) No. 1 of the AufenthG provides for a temporary residence permit for spouses of German nationals. According to Section 28 (1), sentence 3, the temporary residence permit should be granted in derogation of Section 5 (1), No. 1 of the AufenthG according to which the foreigner’s subsistence needs to be secure. According to Section 28 (1), sentence 5 in conjunction with Section 30 (1), No. 2 of the AufenthG, the spouse has to be able to communicate in the German language at least on a basic level. The local aliens’ registration office did not grant residence as the claimant was unable to provide proof of knowledge of the German language as foreseen in Section 28 of the AufenthG. The claimant argued that, as an EU citizen, she did not have to provide such proof. The Administrative Court of Gießen (Verwaltungsgericht, VG) dismissed the case by reasoning that the premises of Section 28 (2) of the AufenthG were not fulfilled because the claimant had been involved in criminal proceedings. The VGH ruled that Section 28 of the AufenthG due to a most favourable clause (Section 11 (1), last sentence) was applicable. According to Section 11 (1), last sentence, the AufenthG shall apply if it establishes a more favourable legal status than the FreizügG/EU. The VGH further stated that the conditions of Section 28 of the AufenthG still had to be fulfilled. Main reasoning The claimant argues that Article 28 of the AufenthG is applicable to EU citizens without them having to provide / proof of language skills and income. Otherwise they would be discriminated against in comparison with third- argumentation country nationals, who according to Section 30 (1), sentence 3 of the AufenthG did not have to prove language (max.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common Core Document of the Federal Republic of Germany
    Common Core Document of the Federal Republic of Germany (as per: 15 May 2009) II Contents CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................................................III A. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY................................ 1 I. GEOGRAPHICAL , HISTORICAL , DEMOGRAPHIC , SOCIAL , CULTURAL , ECONOMIC AND JUDICIAL CHARACTERISTICS .. 1 1. Geographical category................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Historical background................................................................................................................................. 1 3. Demographic characteristics....................................................................................................................... 3 a. General information.................................................................................................................................................. 3 b. Shares of the population with foreign nationality........................................................................................................ 5 c. Religious affiliation .................................................................................................................................................. 6 4. Social and cultural characteristics..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal of Republic of Germany Is a Democratic and Social Federal
    The Federal Republic of Germany Jutta Kramer The Federal Republic of Germany “is a democratic and social federal state” (Basic Law, Art. 20I). It was founded in 1949, after the Western Allies gave the prime ministers of the Länder (i.e., the constituent states), which were reestablished after the Second World War, the task of drafting a new constitution with a federal character in order to prevent a strong central state from arising in Germany again. However, the federal order in Germany does not follow the example of the United States Constitution, which emphasizes a division of powers between governments, but rather the German tradition, which is characterized by mutual connections, interconnections, and overlapping of the centralized and decentralized state units.1 When it was founded, the Federal Republic of Germany consisted of 11 Länder (without Berlin, which was a city-state under Allied control) that did not conform to the boundaries of the former Weimar Republic. Since reunification in 1990, Germany has consisted of 16 Länder, including three city-states: Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin. Germany’s population is spread across 357,000 square kilometres. The highest population density is in Berlin, which has 3,800 inhabitants per square kilometre; the lowest is in the Land Brandenburg, which has only 88 inhabitants per square kilometre. Länder sizes differ considerably as well. The smallest Land, Bremen, consisting of two cities (Bremen and Bremerhaven), has 680,000 inhabitants; the largest Land, North Rhine-Westphalia, has more than 17.9 million inhabitants. The ethnicity of Germany’s population of 82.1 million people is largely homogeneous.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany (1950-2018)
    Germany Self-rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH AND POLICY SCOPE Germany has two-tiered regional governance consisting of sixteen Länder and (Land)Kreise. Several Länder have a third tier between these two, Regierungsbezirke (administrative districts). Two Länder have a fourth tier of regional governance, Landschaftsverbände in North-Rhine Westphalia and Bezirksverband Pfalz in Rhineland-Palatinate.1 The 1949 Basic Law of the German Federal Republic granted eleven Länder extensive competences, which include legislative powers for culture, education, universities, broadcasting/television, local government, and the police (C 1949, Art. 74; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). Länder also exercise residual competences (C 1949, Art. 70). In addition, the Basic Law states that Länder are responsible for the implementation of most federal laws (C 1949, Arts. 83–85). The federal government may legislate to preserve legal and economic unity with respect to justice, social welfare, civil law, criminal law, labor law, and economic law (C 1949, Art 72.2), and it has authority to establish the legislative framework in higher education, the press, environmental protection, and spatial planning (C 1949, Art. 72.3; Reutter 2006). The federal government exercises sole legislative authority over foreign policy, defense, currency, and public services (C 1949, Art. 73; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). It also has exclusive authority over immigration and citizenship (C 1949, Arts. 73.2 and 73.3), though Länder administer inter-Land immigration and have concurrent competence on residence (Bendel and Sturm 2010: 186-187; C 1949, Arts. 74.4 and 74.6).2 However, this is not enough to qualify for the maximum score on policy scope.β The constitutional division of authority was extended to the five new Länder after unification in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Commander's Guide to German Society, Customs, and Protocol
    Headquarters Army in Europe United States Army, Europe, and Seventh Army Pamphlet 360-6* United States Army Installation Management Agency Europe Region Office Heidelberg, Germany 20 September 2005 Public Affairs Commanders Guide to German Society, Customs, and Protocol *This pamphlet supersedes USAREUR Pamphlet 360-6, 8 March 2000. For the CG, USAREUR/7A: E. PEARSON Colonel, GS Deputy Chief of Staff Official: GARY C. MILLER Regional Chief Information Officer - Europe Summary. This pamphlet should be used as a guide for commanders new to Germany. It provides basic information concerning German society and customs. Applicability. This pamphlet applies primarily to commanders serving their first tour in Germany. It also applies to public affairs officers and protocol officers. Forms. AE and higher-level forms are available through the Army in Europe Publishing System (AEPUBS). Records Management. Records created as a result of processes prescribed by this publication must be identified, maintained, and disposed of according to AR 25-400-2. Record titles and descriptions are available on the Army Records Information Management System website at https://www.arims.army.mil. Suggested Improvements. The proponent of this pamphlet is the Office of the Chief, Public Affairs, HQ USAREUR/7A (AEAPA-CI, DSN 370-6447). Users may suggest improvements to this pamphlet by sending DA Form 2028 to the Office of the Chief, Public Affairs, HQ USAREUR/7A (AEAPA-CI), Unit 29351, APO AE 09014-9351. Distribution. B (AEPUBS) (Germany only). 1 AE Pam 360-6 ● 20 Sep 05 CONTENTS Section I INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose 2. References 3. Explanation of Abbreviations 4. General Section II GETTING STARTED 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany 2020 Human Rights Report
    GERMANY 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Germany is a constitutional democracy. Citizens choose their representatives periodically in free and fair multiparty elections. The lower chamber of the federal parliament (Bundestag) elects the chancellor as head of the federal government. The second legislative chamber, the Federal Council (Bundesrat), represents the 16 states at the federal level and is composed of members of the state governments. The country’s 16 states exercise considerable autonomy, including over law enforcement and education. Observers considered the national elections for the Bundestag in 2017 to have been free and fair, as were state elections in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Responsibility for internal and border security is shared by the police forces of the 16 states, the Federal Criminal Police Office, and the federal police. The states’ police forces report to their respective interior ministries; the federal police forces report to the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the state offices for the protection of the constitution are responsible for gathering intelligence on threats to domestic order and other security functions. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reports to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, and the state offices for the same function report to their respective ministries of the interior. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over security forces. Members of the security forces committed few abuses. Significant human rights issues included: crimes involving violence motivated by anti-Semitism and crimes involving violence targeting members of ethnic or religious minority groups motivated by Islamophobia or other forms of right-wing extremism.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018/19 of the German Council of Economic Experts (GCEE)
    1 © 2019 Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability Goethe University Frankfurt House of Finance Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 3 60323 Frankfurt am Main Tel.:+49 (0)69 798-33805 www.imfs-frankfurt.de PHOTOS IMFS / Hannelore Förster, German Council of Economic Experts, Hoover Institution / Tim Griffith, Kronberger Kreis DESIGN www.werbe-freiheit.com 2 Table of Contents 5 Highlights 2018 10 Institute and Staff 11 I. The Institute 15 II. The IMFS in Numbers 16 III. Macroeconomic Model Comparison Initiative (MMCI) 18 IV. External Research Funding 21 V. Member of the European Banking Institute 22 VI. The Researchers 35 VII. Organization Chart 36 Conversations with IMFS Researchers and Alumni 42 Teaching Concept and Activities 51 Publications and Presentations 52 I. IMFS Working Papers 54 II. IMFS Interdisciplinary Studies 55 III. Publications 60 IV. Speeches and Conference Presentations 67 Events 69 I. Conferences 82 II. Working Lunches 86 II. Distinguished Lectures 88 Research-Based Policy Advice 91 Public Outreach and Press 3 Editorial Dear friends of the IMFS, Having obtained financing for another 10-year At the same time, this open platform, where period in the preceding year, the IMFS made scientists can share formulas and code and another leap forward in 2018: Roland Broemel replicate models, represents the nucleus of and Alexander Meyer-Gohde were appointed a key international research initiative: the as IMFS professors and now contribute their Macroeconomic Model Comparison Initiative expertise in public law and financial regulation (MMCI), a joint project led by the Hoover and in macroeconomics and financial markets, Institution at Stanford University and the IMFS.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance
    Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 01/10/2021 21:41:15 Part 4. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia vol. XXVII, 1, 2018 DOI: 10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121 Peter Stainer Attorney-at-law, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Dominik König Inhouse legal counsel, Bad Homburg, Germany [email protected] The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – A Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Koncepcja stare decisis w systemie prawa niemieckiego – niespójna systemowo koncepcja posiadająca wysoką realną wartość SUMMARY It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedentsUMCS in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require inter- pretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding. Keywords: stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court INTRODUCTION Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”1.
    [Show full text]
  • TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic
    National Programme for Turkey 2010 under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic Management Capacity Germany Country Report 30/01/2015 1 Table of Contents Page 1. General Information 4 1.1. Sources and Aims 4 1.2. Structural Aspects of the German State 4 1.3. Area and Population 7 1.4. GDP and Financial and Budgetary Situation 10 1.5. Main Economic and Commercial Characteristics 12 2. Government and Public Administration of the Federal Level 15 2.1. Federal Constitutional Structure (head of state, head of government, parliament, judiciary) 15 2.2. Central Bodies (chancellor, ministers) 16 2.3. Public Administration 17 2.3.1. Public Administration: employees 17 2.3.2. Public Administration: assessment and training 19 2.4. Reforms to the Structure of Government (past, in progress, planned) 22 3. Four Examples of Länder/Federal States (according to size, history, economic structure and geographic direction) 26 3.1. Baden-Württemberg - General Structure 28 3.1.1. Government and Public Administration 28 3.1.2. Reforms 30 3.2. Brandenburg - General Structure 32 3.2.1. Government and Public Administration 32 3.2.2. Reforms 33 3.3. Lower Saxony - General Structure 34 3.3.1. Government and Public Administration 35 3.3.2. Reforms 36 3.4. Saarland - General Structure 38 3.4.1. Government and Public Administration 38 3.4.2. Reforms 39 4. Strategic Planning and Public Budgeting 41 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee)
    Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee) Original: English CG-MON(2020)17-03prov Restricted 22 June 2020 Monitoring of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Austria Rapporteurs1 : Marc COOLS, Belgium (L, ILDG) Andrew DISMORE, United-Kingdom (R, SOC/G/PD) Preliminary draft recommendation ................................................................................................................ 2 Draft explanatory memorandum .................................................................................................................... 5 Summary This report is prepared following the second monitoring visit to Austria since the country ratified the Charter in 1987. It welcomes the constitutional and legal recognition and substantial implementation of the principle of local self-government in Austria, the introduction of the Länder Administrative Courts to strengthen the Austrian federalism, the extension of the competences of the associations of local authorities to cooperate and the reforms carried out since 2011 with a view to clarifying the distribution of competences between the Federation, the Länder and local authorities. The adoption of the New Government Plan with the objective, among other things, to tackle some of the outstanding issues reflected in this report has also been welcomed. At the same time, the rapporteurs stress that in Austria, there is still a high degree of complexity in the allocation of
    [Show full text]
  • 19Th-22Nd CERD-Report Germany
    Nineteenth-Twenty-second Report Submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany Under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination A. General section .................................................................................................... 1 B. Report on compliance with and implementation of Articles 1 to 7 of the Convention................................................................................................................ 2 I. Re Article 1 ICERD (Definition of racial discrimination) ..............................................2 II. Re Article 2 ICERD (Condemnation of racial discrimination and protection of certain ethnic groups).......................................................................................................3 1. Re Article 2 para. 1 a) and b) ICERD (Obligation of public agencies not to engage in racial discrimination)...................................................................................................... 3 2. Re Article 2 para. 1 c) ICERD (Mechanisms for reviewing procedures applied by public agencies and legislation which have the effect of racial discrimination) ............... 4 3. Re Article 2 para. 1 d) ICERD (Prohibition and elimination of racial discrimination among private individuals) ............................................................................................. 5 4. Re Article 2 para. 1 e) ICERD (Combating racism and promoting integration especially by encouraging integrationist organisations and movements)
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Evaluation of the Judicial Systems (2016-2018 Cycle) Germany Generated on : 29/08/2018 11:17
    1. Evaluation of the judicial systems (2016-2018 cycle) Germany Generated on : 29/08/2018 11:17 Reference data 2016 (01/01/2016 - 31/12/2016) Start/end date of the data collection campaign : 01/06/2017 - 31/12/2017 Objective : The CEPEJ decided, at its 28th plenary meeting, to launch the seventh evaluation cycle 2016 – 2018, focused on 2016 data. The CEPEJ wishes to use the methodology developed in the previous cycles to get, with the support of its national correspondents' network, a general evaluation of the judicial systems in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe as well as two observer states (Israel and Morocco). This will enable policy makers and judicial practitioners to take account of such unique information when carrying out their activities. The present questionnaire was adapted by the Working group on evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) in view of the previous evaluation cycles and considering the comments submitted by CEPEJ members, observers, experts and national correspondents. The aim of this exercise is to increase awareness of judicial systems in the participating states, to compare the functioning of judicial systems in their various aspects, as well as to have a better knowledge of the trends of the judicial organisation in order to help improve the efficiency of justice. The evaluation questionnaire and the analysis of the results becomes a genuine tool in favour of public policies on justice, for the sake of the European citizens. Instruction : The ways to use the application and to answer the questions are guided by two main documents: -User manual -Explanatory note While the explanatory note gives definitions and explanations on the CEPEJ evaluation questionnaire and the methodology needed for replying, the User manual is a tool to help you navigate through this application.
    [Show full text]
  • Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in Respect of Non-Equity Securities Within the Meaning of Art
    Base Prospectus 17 November 2020 This document constitutes the base prospectus of Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in respect of non-equity securities within the meaning of Art. 2 (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 (the “Prospectus Regulation”) for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Prospectus Regulation (the “Base Prospectus”). Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany) as Issuer EUR 4,000,000,000 Debt Issuance Programme (the “Programme”) In relation to notes issued under this Programme, application has been made to the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the “CSSF”) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (“Luxembourg”) in its capacity as competent authority under the Luxembourg act relating to prospectuses for securities dated 16 July 2019 (Loi du 16 juillet 2019 relative aux prospectus pour valeurs mobilières et portant mise en oeuvre du règlement (UE) 2017/1129, the “Luxembourg Law”) for approval of this Base Prospectus. The CSSF only approves this Base Prospectus as meeting the standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency imposed by the Prospectus Regulation. Such approval should not be considered as an endorsement of the economic or financial opportunity of the operation or the quality and solvency of the Issuer or of the quality of the Notes that are the subject of this Base Prospectus. Investors should make their own assessment as to the suitability of investing in the Notes. By approving this Base Prospectus, the CSSF does not assume any responsibility as to the economic and financial soundness of any issue of Notes under the Programme and the quality or solvency of the Issuer.
    [Show full text]