Best Practices in Involuntary Loss of Nationality in the EU. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 73/November 2014

This paper was prepared as a ILEC Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu

European Citizenship at the Crossroads: Enhancing European Cooperation on Acquisition and Loss of Nationality. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 73/December 2014

This paper was prepared as a Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu

Reflections on quasi-loss of nationality in comparative, international and European perspective. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 66/August 2014

This paper focuses on situations in which a person is said never to have had the nationality of a country, even though (s)he assumed (and in many cases the authorities of the country concerned shared that assumption) that (s)he possessed that nationality. Contrary to situations of loss of nationality, where something is taken away that had existed, quasi-loss involves situations in which nationality was never acquired. This contribution seeks to examine whether a person should under certain circumstances be protected against quasi-loss of nationality. In order to do so, the paper first maps out situations of quasi-loss in EU member states, describing typical cases in which a person never acquired the nationality of the country, although (s)he was at some time considered as a national. Drawing on this taxonomy, the paper attempts to uncover whether national, European and international laws offer some protection, and if yes, to which extent, for situations of quasi-loss. It concludes with outlining best practices which Member States should comply with in handling such situations

How to deal with quasi-loss of nationality situations? Learning from promising practices. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 71/December 2014

This paper was prepared as a Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu

The relationship between citizenship and residence in the citizenship laws of the member states of the European Union

CARIM-India: Developing a knowledge base for policymaking on India-EU migrationThis paper addresses various aspects of the link between residence and citizenship in EU Member States. The first concerns the length or type of residence required for acquisition of citizenship by naturalization. All Member States impose residence requirements for this purpose, but differences between nationals law are considerable. Second, the paper surveys whether, or under which conditions, citizenship acquired by naturalization can by lost by a certain period of residence abroad. Third the paper describes and analyzes national laws that make an exception to the general rule citizenship can be transmitted by (a) parent(s) to their children, even if the parent(s) reside(s) outside of the country of citizenship and their children are therefore born outside that country. The content of this paper is based on several comparative studies conducted on grounds for acquisition and loss of nationality, in particular of the Member States of the European Union.CARIM-India is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Unio

A Comparative Analysis of Regulations on Involuntary Loss of Nationality in the European Union. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, 75/December 2014

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU

The Dubious Quality of Legal Dictionaries

As a consequence of the still increasing transnational commercial and scholarly cooperation and exchange, more and more often legal information has to be translated. Sometimes the content of legal documents (contracts, statutory provisions, books and articles on legal topics and so on) has to be translated into another language. But even more frequently, information on rules from one legal system has to be provided in the legal language of another legal system. In both cases the translator or the lawyer involved is confronted with difficulties of legal translation. In both cases bilingual legal dictionaries could play an important role in the translating process by providing translation suggestions and information on the linguistic context of terms in the target language, such as specific noun-verb combinations, or typical collocations. It is, therefore, not really surprising that publishing houses are offering numerous bilingual legal dictionaries to translators and lawyers. To translate between the different languages of the Member States of the European Union (EU) about one hundred seventy bilingual legal dictionaries are available. Regrettably, the quality of most of these dictionaries is poor to extremely bad. Only a few dictionaries are of good quality. It seems to us that many authors or compilers of bilingual legal dictionaries do not understand how legal translations should be made. They simply make a list of legal terms in the source language and give for each term one or more words from the target language as translation without any further information on the legal context. Because of the system-specificity of legal terminology, this kind of dictionaries is practically useless. In this article, the quality of the different bilingual legal dictionaries between the languages of the Member States of the European Union will be assessed. In order to do so, some general remarks will be made first about problems with translating legal terminology. Based on those remarks, criteria for reliable bilingual dictionaries will be formulated in the next section. Finally, these criteria will be applied on the available bilingual dictionaries containing the legal language used by one or more EU Member States. In addition, statistics are presented in order to give an impression between which legal languages of the Member States of the EU bilingual legal dictionaries are available

Protectionism in the European Community against Brazilian exports

Includes bibliograph