| Documentation Database: | Questionnaires: Family Reunification Directive 2003/86/EC Austria |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject | Comparative study on the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive 2003/86/EC in (25) Member States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Data from other countries | Go to Questionnaire (with links to the answers of all other countries) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This Form | Data by Austria (30/11/2006) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section | Question | Answer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. General | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A.1 | top Q: Has the Directive been implemented in your country? If so, please add the references and the texts of relevant legislative and administrative measures and the dates they entered into force. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: On 1 January 2006 new legislation entered into force that changed wide parts of the whole migration law. The Directive was implemented through this so called Aliens law package (Fremdenrechtspaket) comprising the following acts:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A.2 | top Q: Has there been a political or public debate on the implementation of the Directive? If so, please summarize the main issues of the debate. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The Directive has not been implemented by a special act of legislation but in the course of a broad reform of the whole asylum and migration law. There has been heavy political and public debate on this process of reform, but the implementation of Directive 2003/86/EC was not among the major themes of this discussion. The more controversial issues were among others the question of forced feeding of persons detained pending extradition, asylum law and questions of integration measures. In general it has to be noted that the Austrian legislator did not seem to have much interest in a broad discussion of the reform. The time limit for comments on the drafts for the new laws was rather short and only single aspects of the proposed amendments of the drafts have been taken into consideration. The broad public did not take too much notice of the new legislation before it entered into force. It was only after the entry into force that the problems caused by the new migration law became visible to the public and led to protests.
In respect of family reunification, mainly two aspects were discussed before the entry into force and are still on the political and public agenda. The first aspect concerns the requirement to apply for family reunification and to await the outcome of the proceedings in the country of origin. This leads to the phenomenon that spouses staying in Austria with their Austrian or third country national partners are no longer able to apply for a settlement permit in Austria but have to leave Austria and stay in their country of origin until their application has been accepted. This is problematic especially in cases where the spouse has left his/her country of origin due to fear of persecution but has not yet been recognised as a Convention refugee. In these cases the Austrian authorities demand the asylum seekers to withdraw their application for asylum before a settlement permit is granted. This leads to a loss of the provisional right to stay in Austria granted to asylum seekers and requires that these persons return to their country of origin to file an application for family reunification. It seems that many asylum seekers followed this proposal of the authorities before the entry into force of the new legislation because they were promised to be granted a settlement permit under the old legislation and are now in a precarious situation because the authorities did not decide on the basis of the old legislation and the persons concerned therefore lost their provisional right to stay in Austria on 1 January 2006.
The other aspect of the reform facing criticism is the increased income requirement that poses an obstacle for many third country nationals living and working in Austria who want to reunite with their family but whose income does not reach the required minimum of EUR 1055,90 for a married couple plus EUR 72,33 for each minor child (see below, Art. 7).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A.3 | top Q: What have been the main changes in the national law or practice due to the Directive. Please indicate for each change whether it improved or deteriorated the legal status of third country nationals and their family members? Did it make the national rules more strict or more liberal? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: In general the implementation of the Directive improved the status of third country nationals with regard to family reunification. The legislation in force until 31 December 2005 was very complex and contained different provisions with regard to different categories of aliens, depending on the purpose of their settlement in Austria. Only the major changes in regard of family reunification will be discussed in the following.
Austrian migration law in force until 31 December 2005 differed between sponsors who settled in Austria before 1 January 2003 and those who came to Austria after that date. Family reunification with regard to sponsors who came to Austria before that date was limited to spouses and children under the age of 15 years. This limitation was lifted in the new legislation. Third country nationals who came to Austria after 1 January 2003 were required to notify the authority of their will to bring their family members to Austria when applying for a settlement permit. This is no longer necessary under the new legislation that entered into force on 1 January 2006.
Another improvement is the implementation of the maximum waiting period of three years from the date of application. As family reunification depended (and still depends) on a quota fixing the maximum of persons accepted for family reunification each year and these quotas usually were far too low compared to the number of applications, family members usually had to wait for several years before they could settle with their sponsor in Austria. This problem was moderated by a judgement of the Constitutional Court (G 119, 120/03, 8 October 2003) stating that the quota may not be taken into consideration when family reunification is required by Art. 8 ECHR, but the waiting period still persisted. The new legislation provides for a maximum waiting period of three years (see below, Art. 8).
The access to the labour market has also been improved for family members of third country nationals. While under the old legislation they could take up an employment during the first four years of their settlement only if they were granted an employment permit, which proved to be rather difficult in practice, they are now entitled to a settlement permit allowing employment irrespective of any further permit under the Employment of Aliens Act after one year of settlement.
The possibility to obtain an autonomous residence permit is another field where the implementation of the directive improved the situation of third country nationals. Under the old legislation they were entitled to an autonomous residence permit only after four years and there were no provisions with regard to exceptional circumstances as mentioned in Art. 15 par. 3 of the Directive.
A major deterioration imposed with the new legislation entering into force on 1 January 2006 is the increased income requirement. However, this amendment is not due to the Directive but shows the intention of the legislator to restrict family reunification as far as possible. As the Directive sets mandatory minimum standards, the legislator seems to try to restrict family reunification by way of finding new requirements not covered by the Directive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A.4 | top Q: Are there already judgments of national courts applying or interpreting the Directive? If so on which issues? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Up to now there have been only two judgements of the Administrative Court applying provisions implementing the Directive:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A.5 | top Q: Did the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 June 2006 in the case Parliament v. Council (C-540/03) already have any effect on the implementation of the Directive, the national practice or case-law or the legal literature? If so, please specify the effects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Up to now, the judgment of the Court of justice of 27 Jun2 2006 did not have any impact on the Austrian legislation, practice or case-law. There are no decisions of the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court referring to the said judgment of the European Court of Justice. There has neither been a broad discussion of the judgment in legal literature nor has the judgment developed any visible influence on the practice of the Austrian authorities. As the judgment of the European Court of Justice does not show any need to change the Austrian legislation or practice, no wide ranging adjustments of the legislation, practice or case-law in the light of the judgment are to be expected.
Besides the publications on Directive 2003/86/EC already submitted with the questionnaire, the following articles dealing with the Directive have been published in Austria or will be published in the near future:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B. Questions on specific provisions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.1 | top Q: Article 3(1): How is the clause: who has reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence implemented in the national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: A sponsor is deemed to have reasonable prospects of obtaining the right to permanent residence in Austria for the purpose of Art. 3 § 1 Directive 2003/86/EC, if he/she has either been granted a settlement permit 'permanent residence EC' (Daueraufenthalt - EG) or 'settlement permit -unlimited' (Niederlassungsbewilligung - unbeschränkt) or if he holds another settlement permit granting access to employment and has already fulfilled the so called 'integration agreement' (see below, Art. 7). In these cases the sponsor is regarded as integrated and the refusal of a renewed settlement permit is possible only under restricted preconditions. The residence permits 'permanent residence - EC' and 'settlement permit - unlimited' are granted only after five years of legal settlement in Austria. These residence permits are issued without temporary limitation and grant access to the labour market without the requirement of another permit. If the sponsor holds one of these residence permits, his/her family members are entitled to a settlement permit according to Art. 46 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act - the central provision regulating family reunification with sponsors who are third country nationals. If the sponsor holds another, less favourable residence permit, family reunification depends on the fulfilment of the 'integration agreement'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.2 | top Q: Article 3(3):
Will a third country national also having the nationality of your country be able to rely on the Directive? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to the legal definitions of Art. 2 Settlement and Residence Act, an alien is a person who does not hold the nationality of Austria. A third country national is a person who is an alien and not a citizen of a member state of the EEC. Persons holding the Austrian nationality as well as the nationality of a third country are not deemed as aliens or third country nationals under Austrian aliens law. As the provisions implementing the directive refer to aliens or third country nationals, persons who hold also Austrian nationality are not able to rely on the Directive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.3 | top Q: Article 3(3):
Are nationals of your country and their third country national family members entitled to the same treatment, to a more privileged treatment or to less favourable treatment as provided in the Directive? Please specify the differences. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: With regard to Austrian nationals the legislation differs between Austrian nationals who make use of their freedom of movement and those who do not. Both categories of Austrian nationals and their third country national family members are treated more favourable than third country nationals falling under the scope of the application of the Directive.
Family reunification of third country national family members of Austrian sponsors who do not make use of their freedom of movement is regulated in Art. 47 and Art. 48 Settlement and Residence Act. Art. 47 differs between the inner family circle (the spouse and unmarried minor children including adopted children) and other family members, i.e. the first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line of the sponsor or his/her spouse if they are provided maintenance, unmarried partners if the relation already existed in the country of origin and if the sponsor provides his/her partner maintenance as well as further family members if they have been provided maintenance in the country of origin or lived in a common household with the sponsor or if they are dependent on the sponsor due to their health.
Family members belonging to the core family are entitled to a residence permit 'family member' (Familienangehöriger) if they fulfil the general requirements for a residence permit under Art. 11 Settlement and Residence Act (see below, Art. 7). In contrast to family members of third country nationals, the granting of family reunification with regard to Austrian nationals does not depend on a quota fixing a maximum of new settlement permits to be issued each year (see below, Art. 8). Another advantage of family members of Austrian sponsors is the possibility to apply for family reunification in Austria (see below, Art. 5 § 3), although this possibility depends on the legal entry into and sojourn in Austria (Art. 21 Settlement and Residence Act). If they are not entitled to stay in Austria by virtue of another permit, they have to await the outcome of the proceedings in their country of origin, just like other third country nationals. Family members of Austrian nationals are also privileged with regard to the access to employment. In contrast to family members of third country nationals, they are exempted from the requirement to obtain an employment permit or work permit under the Employment of Aliens Act and may take up any employment from the first day of the validity of their settlement permit without a further permit.
Family members not belonging to the core family may be granted a 'settlement permit - family member' (Niederlassungsbewilligung - Familienangehöriger) if the general requirements are met. Other than the spouse and unmarried minor children they have to apply for the settlement permit in their country of origin and must not take up an employment.
As already mentioned, more favourable provisions apply when the Austrian national makes use of his/her freedom of movement. In these cases, family reunification is governed by the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states. The Austrian legislator limited the rights to family reunification resulting from EC law with regard to Austrian nationals to persons who make use of their freedom of movement. Austrian nationals who do not make use of this fundamental freedom and their family members are discriminated against other EC nationals who in practice always may rely on their freedom of movement if they reside in Austria. This different treatment does not infringe EC law, but it is seems to be incompatible with the prohibition of discrimination provided for in Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 8 ECHR and in Art. 1 of the Austrian Constitutional Act on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (BVG über die Beseitigung rassischer Diskiminierung). [The Constitutional Act on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Federal Law Gazette 1973, Nr. 390) has been adopted in 1973 to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.4 | top Q: Article 4(1):
Has the right to family reunification of spouses and minor children been codified in national law? If so, please mention the relevant provisions of national law. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Art. 4 (1) has been implemented into Austrian law by Art. 2 § 1 No. 9 Settlement and Residence Act. This provision contains the definition of family members entitled to family reunification. According to that provision the following relatives of the sponsor are regarded as family members for the purposes of Directive 2003/86/EC: the sponsor's spouse and the unmarried minor children of the sponsor as well as those of his/her spouse (including adopted children and stepchildren). In the case of polygamous marriages only one spouse is entitled to family reunification. If there is already one spouse living with the sponsor in Austria, the other spouses cannot be considered as family members for the purposes of Directive 2003/86/EC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.5 | top Q: Article 4(1) and 4(6): (children over 12 or 15 years)
Does the national law of your country provide special rules concerning the admission of children aged over 12 or 15 years? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austria did not make use of the possibility provided for in Art. 4 § 1 last sentence. Children aged over 12 or 15 years are seen as minors without any special rules applicable. All children between the age of 12 and 18 years are treated the same way. There is therefore no limitation of family reunification in respect of children aged over 12 or 15 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.6 | top Q: If children over 15 are prevented from applying for family reunification under what conditions are they entitled to reside considering the obligation for Member States second sentence of Article 4(6)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: As mentioned above, there are no special limitations on the application for family reunification of children aged over 15 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.7 | top Q: Is your country barred from using the exceptions in Article 4(1) last sentence and Article 4(6) by the standstill-clauses in those two provisions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: As Austrian law on 3 October 2005 contained no rules providing for conditions of integration children aged over 12 years had to fulfil before their entry, Austria is barred from using these exceptions.
With regard to children aged over 15 years, the Austrian Aliens Act in force until 31 December 2005 made a distinction between sponsors who where residing in Austria before 1 January 1998 and aliens who entered Austria after that date. In respect of sponsors who came to Austria before 1998, family reunification was limited to their spouse and to children who filed an application for family reunification before they reached the age of 15 (Art. 21 § 3 Aliens Act). As Austrian law therefore provided that an application for family reunification of minor children had to be filed before the child reached the age of 15 years only in respect of sponsors who took residence in Austria before 1998, Austria may make use of the exception provided for in Art. 4 § 6 of the Directive only in this narrow field of application, that meanwhile has lost its practical importance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.8 | top Q: Article 4(3) (unmarried partners)
Has the provision on the admission of unmarried partners been implemented in national law? If so, under what conditions do they have a right to family reunification? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The definition of family members for the purpose of the Directive contained in Art. 2 § 1 No. 9 Settlement and Residence Act does not include unmarried partners. Family reunification with regard to family members of third country nationals is therefore limited to spouses and minor unmarried children.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.9 | top Q: Article 4(5) (minimum age spouse)
Does the national law require a minimum age for the admission of spouses that is higher than 18 years? If so what is the minimum age? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: No, according to Art. 2 § 1 No. 9 Settlement and Residence Act spouses (except of persons married to a citizen of the EEC, Austria or Switzerland) have to be at least 18 years of age to be entitled to family reunification. This provision is aimed at the prevention of forced marriage of minor persons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.10 | top Q: Article 5(2) (documents and fees)
What kind of documentary evidence has to be presented with a family reunification application? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Applications for family reunification have to be supported by the following documents:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.11 | top Q: Does the applicant have to pay any fees and, if so, what is the (total) amount of those fees? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The usual fee to be paid for a settlement permit granted for the purpose of family reunification amounts to EUR 100. This fee corresponds to the general fees that have to be paid for temporary limited settlement permits. The fee for unlimited settlement permits amounts to EUR 150 (Gebührengesetz 1957, Tarifpost 8).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.12 | top Q: Article 5(3) (place of application)
May an application be submitted when the family members are already residing in the Member State? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 21 § 1 Settlement and Residence Act, family members in general have to apply for a settlement permit before entering Austria. The application has to be submitted to the competent Austrian authority in the country of origin, i.e. the consulate or embassy (consular office). The entry into Austrian territory is only allowed after the settlement permit has been granted, the family member concerned therefore has to await the decision in his/her country of residence.
Some exceptions to this general rule are provided for in Art. 21 § 2 Settlement and Residence Act. According to this provision, the following groups of aliens may file their application in Austria:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.13 | top Q: Article 5(4) (length of the procedure)
Is there any time limit for the decision on the application by the administration? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: In general, a decision in administrative proceedings has to be taken within six months from the application. If the competent authority does not comply with this requirement, the applicant may request the delegation of the case to the superior authority (Art. 73 General Administrative Procedures Act - Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz AVG). If the upper authority is dilatory too, an application to the Administrative Court is admissible (Art. 27 Administrative Court Act - Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz VwGG).
In respect of applications for family reunification, there are special rules regarding the time limits for the decisions. These exceptions are necessary, because family reunification in most cases depends on a quota (see below, Art. 8). If all requirements are met by an applicant but the settlement permit cannot be granted because the quota has already been exhausted, the application may not be rejected but the authority has to postpone the decision until a place in the quota is available in one of the subsequent years. According to Art. 12 § 7 Settlement and Residence Act the general provisions on the time limits mentioned above (Art. 73 General Administrative Procedures Act, Art. 27 Administrative Court Act) are not applicable in this case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.14 | top Q: Article 5(5) (interest of the child)
How is the provision that Member States 'shall have due regard to the best interests of minor children' implemented in national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: This provision has not been implemented into Austrian law expressly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.15 | top Q: Article 6 (public policy exception)
How has the public policy and public security exception been implemented and defined in the national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Art. 11 Settlement and Residence Act provides for general requirements that have to be fulfilled by any alien who applies for a settlement permit irrespective of whether the person concerned applies for family reunification or any other settlement permit. According to Art. 11 § 2 No. 1 Settlement and Residence Act a settlement permit may only be granted if the applicant's sojourn in Austria does not conflict public interests. Art. 11 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act specifies under which circumstances this is the case. According to this provision, the sojourn is contrary to public interest, when it either threatens public order or public health or if the person concerned has a terrorist background. The latter exclusion clause is defined as close connections to extremist or terrorist groups (if with regard to their structures or future prospects extremist or terrorist activities cannot be ruled out). As the explanatory report states, the sojourn of an alien constitutes a threat to public order or security when there are reasons to assume that the person concerned is opposed to the fundamental values common to democratic states and their societies and will try to convince other people of these opinions.
In respect of public health, Austrian immigration law provides that a person applying for a settlement permit has to submit a medical certificate stating that the applicant does not suffer from certain heavy diseases mentioned in Art. 23 Aliens Police Act if the applicant has been in a country where a high risk of these diseases exists within the last six months. The countries concerned have to be listed in a regulation by the Ministry of health. Up to now, no such regulation has been set into force. [Explanatory report to the draft for the Settlement and Residence Act (see annex), Art. 11 § 4.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.16 | top Q: What are the similarities and differences compared to the definitions of the same notions in the context of free movement of EU citizens? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: EU citizens relying on their right to free movement are not required to apply for a settlement permit, but have to obtain a declaratory certificate documenting their legal sojourn in Austria (Art. 53 Settlement and Residence Act). According to Art. 55 Settlement and Residence Act this right to settle in Austria does not exist if the person's sojourn in Austria constitutes a threat to public policy, public security of public health. If this is the case, the authority has to inform the aliens police authority and notify the EU citizen concerned that his/her expulsion is envisaged. Whether an expulsion may take place is regulated in Art. 86 Aliens Police Act. According to this provision, a residence ban against an EU citizen may only be imposed if public policy or public security is threatened by their personal behaviour. Their behaviour must in fact constitute an actual and serious threat that infringes a basic interest of society. Criminal convictions alone cannot justify an expulsion order without further aggravating circumstances.
This definition of a threat to public policy, public security or public health is determined by Art. 27 and Art. 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Compared to the definition contained in Art. 11 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act in respect of third country nationals applying for a settlement permit it is much narrower, allowing an expulsion only in cases where the further sojourn in Austria would impose a serious threat to public interests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.17 | top Q: Article 7(1)(a) and (c)(income and housing)
How is the income requirement specified in the national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 11 § 2 No. 4 Settlement and Residence Act a settlement permit may only be granted if the sojourn of the person concerned will not result in a financial burden for a territorial authority in Austria. Art. 11 § 5 Settlement and Residence Act contains a more precise definition of the income requirement. Accordingly a financial burden for Austria may not be expected when the alien has 'stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family without recourse to the social assistance system' and which correspond to the amount mentioned in Art. 293 General Social Insurance Act (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz ASVG).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.18 | top Q: What is the level of net monthly income required (in euros)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 293 General Social Insurance Act, the net monthly income has to amount to at least EUR 1055,90 for a married couple plus EUR 72,33 for each minor child. If the couple is not married, the income must reach the amount of EUR 690,- per person. The costs of accommodation have to be added to this minimum income, but under deduction of a flat sum of EUR 231,45. If for example a married couple has to pay a monthly rent of EUR 500,- for accommodation, a monthly net income of EUR 1.324,45 is required (1.055,90 plus 500,- for rent minus the flat sum of 231,45). If the couple has got one minor child, the amount increases to EUR 1.396,78. This sum of additional EUR 72,33 per child is also applicable with regard to major children who are not yet economically independent from their parents. Social assistance payments cannot be regarded as income.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.19 | top Q: Is there a housing requirement in force, and if so, what is the minimum surface of the accommodation (in square meters)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 11 § 2 No. 2 Settlement and Residence Act the applicant has to submit evidence that he or she has a legal title to accommodation regarded as normal for a comparable family in the same region (e.g. contract of tenancy, property title). Therefore there is no fixed minimum surface determined in square meters. Whether an accommodation can be regarded as sufficient for the family depends on what is usual in the region concerned. What is decisive is the standard of living of families comparable in size in the part of town or the village where the accommodation is located. This may vary significantly within Austria and the authorities do not apply a uniform practice. Aliens who want to bring their family members to Austria are confronted with a practical problem. They are required to submit evidence of a legal title to an accommodation suitable for the whole family already with the application for family reunification, although the family members often are allowed to enter Austria only after a considerable waiting period (see below, Art. 8). That means the applicant has to enter into a tenancy agreement for a bigger (and therefore more expensive) flat months before the accommodation is in fact needed for the family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.20 | top Q: Article 7(2) (integration measures)
Are family members required to comply with integration measures? If so, do they have to comply before or after admission and what are they actually required to do (follow a course, pass a test, etc.) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 11 § 2 No. 6 Settlement and Residence Act a settlement permit may only be extended when the person concerned has fulfilled integration measures provided for in Art. 14 Settlement and Residence Act. Also family members have to fulfil the so called 'integration agreement' after their entry into Austria. The 'integration agreement' consists of two modules:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.21 | top Q: Are there any positive or negative sanctions (privileges, subsidies, fines, residence rights or other) attached to the integration measures? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: There are no positive but only negative sanctions if the 'integration agreement' is not fulfilled. The harshest sanction is expulsion from Austria. If the 'integration agreement' is not fulfilled within five years or the alien obliged to do so does not start to visit the courses due to causes laying exclusively in his/her own sphere and if there is cause to suggest that he/she is unwilling to acquire the skills necessary to integrate in Austria, the person concerned may be expelled from Austria (Art. 54 § 3 Aliens Police Act). Art. 8 ECHR has to be observed. In practice the authorities do not seem to make use of this possibility.
A sanction of more practical relevance is the denial to renew settlement permit if the 'integration agreement' has not been fulfilled within one (Module 1) or five (module 2) years respectively (Art. 11 § 2 No. 6 Settlement and Residence Act).
Art. 77 § 1 No. 4 Settlement and Residence Act provides for a fine if an alien obliged to fulfil the 'integration agreement' does not comply with this obligation within five years. The fine amounts to a maximum of EUR 200,-.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.22 | top Q: Does the national law distinguish between the concepts 'integration conditions' and 'integration measures' (compare Article 4(1) last indent and 7(2))? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austrian legislation does not contain any special provisions with regard to minor children aged over 12 years. There is no difference in treatment of minor children with regard to their age.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.23 | top Q: Article 8 (waiting period)
Is there any waiting period before the family reunification application can be filed? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austrian legislation does not provide for a waiting period before an application for family reunification can be filed. There is also no waiting period before the application can be accepted, but only a limited number of settlement permits may be granted every year. The number of new settlement permits that may be granted in each of the Austrian countries (Bundesländer) and in sum is fixed by the government each year. (The regulation for 2006 provided for a total of 7.000 new settlement permits. The draft of the regulation for 2007 provides for a total of 6.985 permits). If this maximum has already been reached at the time of the application or in the moment of the decision, the authority must not dismiss the application, but has to suspend the proceedings until the quota for one of the subsequent years allows a positive decision. That means the alien concerned has to await a decision until the settlement permit may be granted due to a new contingent in one of the following years. As the quota usually is lower than the number of applications, the persons concerned may have to wait for several years. This system has been subject to harsh criticism by human rights groups. In 2003 the Constitutional Court decided that the application of the system of fixed quotas in the field of family reunification was unconstitutional because it did not allow any exceptions if family reunification was indicated by Art. 8 ECHR (VfGH G 119, 120/03, 8 October 2003). In reply to this judgement and the Directive the legislation in force since 1 January 2006 provides for a maximum waiting period of three years. According to Art. 12 § 7 last sentence Settlement and Residence Act three years after the application was filed, a settlement permit for the purpose of family reunification has to be granted regardless of the quota.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.24 | top Q: Article 9(2) (privileges for refugees)
Which privileges granted by the Articles 10-12 are in the national law limited to family relationship that predate the entry of the refugees? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 2 § 1 No. 22 Asylum Act the definition of family members of an asylum seeker or recognised refugee for the purpose of the Asylum Act is limited to parents of minor children, spouses whose marital relationship did already exist in their country of origin and minor children of the asylum seeker or refugee. Therefore the application of the rules on family reunification of refugees is limited with regard to spouses to relations predating the flight to Austria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.25 | top Q: Do other protected persons than Convention refugees benefit from the provisions of Chapter V of this Directive? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to the definition of Art. 2 § 1 No. 22 Asylum Act, the definition of family members for the purpose of family reunification with persons under international protection is not limited to family members of Convention refugees but comprises also family members of aliens granted subsidiary protection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.26 | top Q: Article 10(3) (family members of unaccompanied minors)
Are the parents, legal guardians or other family members of a refugee who is an unaccompanied minor, entitled to a residence permit under national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The parents of an unaccompanied minor who has been recognised as a Convention refugee or been granted temporary protection will be granted the same status as their child. According to Art. 34 § 2 Asylum Act the parents will be granted this status if the continuation of family life for the purpose of Art. 8 ECHR in another country is impossible. This extension of asylum is therefore limited to the parents of minor children. Neither the legal guardian nor other family members of unaccompanied minors are entitled to a residence permit. Austria did not make use of the possibility to authorise the entry and residence of the legal guardian of further family members of unaccompanied minors other than the parents provided for in Art. 10 § 3 of the Directive.
Art. 10 § 3 (a) has been implemented correctly, as the conditions laid down in Art. 4 § 2 (a) are not applied in the case of unaccompanied minor refugees. The only requirement that has to be met is the impossibility to continue family life in another country. However, as in practice there will hardly be any case where a refugee can be expected to continue family life in his country of origin, this exception is aimed at cases with a special connection to a third country, where family life could be established.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.27 | top Q: Article 11 (lack of documents)
Which rules on alternatives to official documents in case of lack of official documents proving the family relationship are provided for in the national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: If an applicant is not able to prove a family relationship with reliable documents, the competent authority has to give him/her the opportunity to prove the relationship by a DNA-test. According to Art. 29 Settlement and Residence Act the authority must inform the applicant about this opportunity, but the applicant has to pay the necessary tests. If the applicant refuses to undergo such a testing procedure, the authority must not take this as evidence against the family relationship. Art. 29 Settlement and Residence Act also makes clear that such tests must not be used by the authority to check family relationships proved by official documents.
This provision is not only applicable to refugees, but to all aliens relying on family relations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.28 | top Q: Article 12 (exemption from requirements)
From which requirements for family reunification, mentioned in Article 7 or Article 8, are refugees or their family members explicitly exempted by national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austrian legislation provides for a particular system of family reunification with regard to Convention refugees and persons granted temporary protection that differs significantly from the usual system regulated in the Settlement and Residence Act. The relevant provisions are contained in the Asylum Act and not in the Settlement and Residence Act.
According to Art. 34 Asylum Act family members of asylum seekers, persons granted asylum under the Asylum Act or persons granted subsidiary protection (for the definition see above, Art. 9 § 2) may apply for international protection. The family members will be granted protection corresponding to the status of their 'sponsor' if the continuation of family life for the purpose of Art. 8 ECHR is impossible in another country. In such cases the usual requirements for family reunification mentioned in Art. 7 of the Directive do not have to be met. In such cases there is also no waiting period provided for in Art. 8 of the Directive. Art. 34 § 4 Asylum Act contains a provision with regard to family members of asylum seekers. According to this provision, all family members applying for asylum are granted international protection as Convention refugees if one member of the family is recognised as a Convention refugee. If recognition as Convention refugees is not possible but one of the family members is granted temporary protection, this status is extended to the other family members.
If recognition under the Asylum Act is not possible, the family member of an asylum seeker, refugee or person granted subsidiary protection may also file an application for a settlement permit under the generally applicable provisions of the Settlement and Residence Act. In this case, the applicant has to fulfil all the general requirements provided for in Art. 11 Settlement and Residence Act and also the quota system is applicable (Art. 46 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act). According to the parliamentary explanations to Art. 46 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act this provision is applicable for family members of a refugee, if it would be possible to continue family life in another country and therefore Art. 34 § 2 Asylum Act is not applicable. As it is hard to imagine how a person recognised as a Convention refugee or granted subsidiary protection could continue family life in his/her country of origin, the application of Art. 34 § 2 Asylum Act in practice may only be excluded if there is a third country where the family may settle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.29 | top Q: Article 13(1) (visa facilitation)
How has the obligation to grant third country family members 'every facility for obtaining the required visas' been implemented in national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: If an application for family reunification filed in the country of origin has been accepted, the authority has to notify the decision to the applicant via the consulate. According to Art. 23 § 1 Settlement and Residence Act the authority has to order the consulate to issue the required visa. However, this does not mean that the visa is issued automatically. The consulate has to advice the family member on the requirement to obtain a visa. If the family member does not apply for a visa within three months, the family reunification proceedings are discontinued. The family member has to apply for a 'visa-D' (Art. 20 § 1 No. 4 Aliens Police Act) entitling the holder to a single entry into Austria. This type of visa is not valid for other EU member states. There are no special provisions with regard to granting this visa to persons accepted for family reunification, therefore the family member has to fulfil the general requirements (Art. 21 Aliens Police Act) and the usual fees (EUR 43,-) are to be paid. Once in Austria the applicant is required to pick up the settlement permit personally at the issuing authority (i.e. the district authority of the place where he/she will take residence). If the settlement permit is not picked up within six months from the notification of the family member concerned, it becomes invalid and the proceedings are discontinued.
The background of this rather complicated system is that the settlement permits are no longer issued in the form of badges sticked into the passport, but in form of plastic cards. These cards cannot be printed by the consulates themselves, but are produced exclusively in Vienna. Due to the parliamentary explanations to Art. 23 Settlement and Residence Act, sending this cards to the consulates would be unsafe and take too much time.
This procedure corresponds exactly to the usual procedure applicable in all cases where settlement permits are applied for at the Austrian consulates. Austria authorises the entry of family members if their application for family reunification is accepted, but it does not grant any facility for obtaining the necessary visa. There are neither exceptions from the general requirements - that usually will be fulfilled if the person has been accepted for family reunification as they largely correspond to the requirements that have to be met for the granting of a settlement permit - nor from the duty to pay the usual fees. The system is rather complicated, lengthy and not very 'user-friendly'. It would seem much easier to regard any application for family reunification also as an application for the required visa and to issue this automatically and without any additional fees. This could also happen by way of issuing the settlement permit via the consulate as this permit allows also the entry into Austria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.30 | top Q: Article 14 (equal treatment)
How has the right of admitted family members to 'access to employment and self-employment in the same way as the sponsor' been implemented in national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: In general, access to employment and self-employment of aliens under Austrian law depends on the type of settlement permit granted. While some types of settlement permits grant access to employment without requiring any further permit, other settlement permits grant limited access dependent on a permit under the Employment of Aliens Act. A third category of settlement permits excludes employment, the alien concerned has to obtain another type of settlement permit before being able to apply for an employment permit.
Also with regard to family reunification access to employment depends on the type of settlement permit issued for the family member. As the type of residence permit granted to family members depends on the settlement permit of the sponsor, also their access to employment depends on the status of the sponsor. While aliens may take up self-employment from the first day of their settlement in Austria without a special permit, access to other forms of employment is regulated strictly in the Employment of Aliens Act. Only this form of employment will be discussed in the following.
If the sponsor has got a settlement permit not entitling him/her to access to employment ('settlement permit - except employment' / Niederlassungsbewilligung ausgenommen Erwerbstätigkeit), also the family members accepted for family reunification are granted only this type of settlement permit that does not allow any employment. Only after five years a settlement permit of the type 'permanent residence - EC' (Daueraufenthalt - EG) may be granted, entitling its holder to take up an employment. If the sponsor has been granted a 'settlement permit - limited' (Niederlassungsbewiligung - beschränkt) he/she may take up an employment only if a permission under the Employment of Aliens Act is granted. If the sponsor holds this type of settlement permit, also the family members are granted a 'settlement permit - limited'. Family reunification with regard to sponsors holding a 'settlement permit - limited' is only possible if the sponsor has already fulfilled his 'integration agreement' (see above, Art. 7). The family members need a permit under the Employment of Aliens Act if they want to engage in an employment. The granting of the required permit under the Employment of Aliens Act depends on the employment status of the sponsor. If the sponsor has been granted an employment permit (Beschäftigungsbewilligung) also the family members may be granted such a permit. [An employment permit (Beschäftigungsbewilligung) is granted only in respect of a specified employer. The permit has to be applied for by the employer, the alien concerned is not able to change the job without obtaining a new permit.] In such cases the permission may also be issued if the relevant maximum number of permissions to be granted in each year has already been exhausted (Art. 4 § 6 No. 4a Employment of Aliens Act). After twelve months, the granting of an employment permission may no longer be refused because of the situation on the labour market (Art. 4 § 8 Employment of Aliens Act). If the sponsor is holding a work permit (Arbeitserlaubnis), also the family members may be granted a work permit (Art. 14a § 1 Employment of Aliens Act) if he/she has already been residing in Austria for at least twelve months. [A work permit (Arbeitserlaubnis) allows any employment in the county it is issued for. Other than employment permits, the work permit is not limited to a specified employer.] If the sponsor has been granted an exemption certificate (Befreiungsschein) also the family members [The so called exemption certificate (Befreiungsschein) allows employment in the whole territory of Austria. It is issued for a period of five years.] are entitled to such as certificate after twelve months of legal settlement in Austria (Art. 15 § 1 No. 4 Employment of Aliens Act). If the sponsor is granted a 'settlement permit - unlimited' or 'permanent settlement - EC' after the family reunification has been accepted, the family members are entitled to a 'settlement permit - unlimited' after their settlement has lasted twelve months (Art. 46 § 5 Settlement and Residence Act). The 'settlement permit - unlimited' entitles to employment without a further permit under the Employment of Aliens Act. The same goes for family members of a sponsor recognised as a Convention refugee in cases where Art. 34 § 2 Asylum Act is not applicable and the family members therefore are not granted protection under the Asylum Act. Family members of sponsors holding a 'settlement permit - key qualification' are granted a 'settlement permit - limited' entitling them to employment if they get a permit under the Employment of Aliens Act. After twelve months the permission may not be refused because of the situation on the labour market. After 18 months the family member may be granted a 'settlement permit - unlimited' entitling to employment without a permission under the Employment of Aliens Act. If the sponsor holds a 'settlement permit - unlimited' or 'permanent residence - EC' he/she is entitled to employment or self-employment without a further permission under the Employment of Aliens Act. In such cases, the family members are granted a 'settlement permit - limited' and their access to the labour market therefore depends on a permission under the Employment of Aliens Act. After a period of twelve months, they are entitled to a 'settlement permit - unlimited' that grants access to employment without a further permission (Art. 46 § 5 Settlement and Residence Act). Austrian legislation with regard to access of family members accepted for family reunification to employment corresponds exactly to the provisions of the Directive. The legislator tried to implement the provisions of the Directive without granting any rights going further than required by the Directive. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.31 | top Q: Did your country make use of the exception to that equal treatment allowed under Article 14(2) of the Directive? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austria made use of this exception and provides for a general time limit of twelve months before family members accepted for family reunification are granted access to employment without an examination of the situation of the Austrian labour market. The requirements for access to employment are discussed in detail above in the answer to the previous question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.32 | top Q: Article 15 (autonomous residence permit)
After how many years are spouses, unmarried partners and children entitled to an autonomous residence permit under national law? What other conditions are they required to fulfil in order to obtain such a permit? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Austria made use of the maximum waiting period of five years provided for in Art. 15 of Directive 2003/86/EC before an autonomous residence permit may be granted. According to Art. 27 Settlement and Residence Act, the right to reside in Austria in general depends on the settlement permit of the sponsor within five years from the first issue of the settlement permit. In case of a breakdown of the family relationship or in the case of a loss of the sponsor's right to reside in Austria within the first five years, the settlement permit of spouses or children will in general not be renewed. Art. 27 § 3 Settlement and Residence Act provides for exceptions from this general dependence on the sponsor. According to this provision, the settlement permit will be prolonged irrespective of the loss of family relation in the case of the spouse's or the parents' death, divorce on the sponsor's fault or other special circumstances. Such special circumstances exist for instance when the person concerned is a victim of violence exerted by the sponsor and the sponsor was expelled from the family's accommodation by the police due to his violent behaviour or when the sponsor has lost his settlement permit due to a conviction for an intentionally committed offence. In regard of Art. 15 § 3 of the Directive the requirement of a divorce on the sponsor's fault seems to be problematic. This limitation is not provided for in the Directive and the requirement of a divorce on the fault of the sponsor will also give rise to practical problems as the assessment of fault of one of the spouses in the case of divorce is not known to all legislations. As Austrian courts according to the law of conflicts of law have to apply the legislation of the country of nationality of the spouses in case of divorce, many decisions on divorce will not include an assessment of fault. Neither the wording of Art. 27 Settlement and Residence Act nor the parliamentary explanations indicate what should happen in such cases.
After five years spouses and children are entitled to an autonomous settlement permit, if they meet the general requirements provided for in Art. 11 Settlement and Residence Act and if they have fulfilled the 'integration agreement'. This means in particular that the person concerned has to provide evidence on sufficient income, accommodation and sickness insurance. If these requirements are met, the alien is granted a settlement permit called 'permanent residence - EC' (Daueraufenthalt - EG). This permit is temporarily unlimited and entitles to employment in Austria. The issue of this settlement permit is not dependent on the yearly quota limiting the number of settlement permits, because this quota is applicable only on the first issue of a settlement permit for an alien entering Austria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.33 | top Q: Under what conditions can an autonomous residence permit be obtained before the period of time normally required under national law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Besides the special circumstances mentioned above, an autonomous residence permit may be granted before the expiry of the five years waiting period if the person concerned fulfils the general requirements for the issue of a settlement permit mentioned in Art. 11 § 2 No. 2 to No. 4 Settlement and Residence Act on his/her own (Art. 27 § 2 Settlement and Residence Act). Therefore an autonomous settlement permit may be granted after the expiry of the first permit issued for the purpose of family reunification if the family member concerned is able to submit evidence on the required accommodation, sickness insurance and sufficient income. This will be the case in particular when a family member is employed and therefore disposes of sufficient own income.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.34 | top Q: Article 16(1)(a) (resources)
Is the income of family members taken into account for the calculation of the sufficient resources at the time of the renewal of the permit? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The income requirement is defined in Art. 11 § 5 Settlement and Residence Act as fixed and regular income of the persons applying for a settlement permit. This requirement may be fulfilled by income from own employment or by claims to maintenance. Therefore in the case of an application for a renewal the income requirement may be met either by own income of the applicant or by maintenance payments by his/her spouse or parents. The required resources are calculated with regard to the whole family (see above, Art. 7 § 1). Austrian legislation in this respect seems to be compatible with Art. 16 § 1 a of the Directive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.35 | top Q: Article 16(1)(b) (real family relationship)
Does the national law allow for refusal or withdrawal of a residence permit on the ground that the family member does no longer live in a real marital or family relationship? If so, which criteria have to be fulfilled under national law? Is the ground applicable to the relationship between parents and minor children? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 54 § 5 No. 1 Aliens Police Act a person who has been granted a settlement permit for the purpose of family reunification may be expelled from Austria, if one of the requirements for the issue of the settlement permits ceases to be met within five years. This is the case in particular when the person concerned does no longer live in a real marital or family relationship with the sponsor. After five years the family members are entitled to an autonomous settlement permit and the termination of the family relationship has no effect on their right to reside in Austria (see above, Art. 15). In the case of a marriage of convenience, Art. 60 § 2 No. 9 Aliens Police Act provides for a residence ban on Austrian territory (see below, Art. 16 § 4). According to Art. 66 Aliens Police Act in any case of an expulsion order the authorities have to examine if the expulsion would violate the right to respect of private and family life as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR. The expulsion is inadmissible if it cannot be justified under Art. 8 § 2 ECHR. Art. 28 Settlement and Residence Act has to be mentioned in connection with Art. 16 of the Directive, as the parliamentary explanations of this article expressly refer to Art. 16 of the Directive. This provision contains a special provision for cases where the expulsion of persons holding a settlement permit 'unlimited residence - EC' (Daueraufenthalt - EG) or 'unlimited residence - family member' (Daueraufenthalt - Familienangehöriger) would contravene the right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR. If an expulsion of such persons from Austrian territory or a would be admissible under Art. 54 or Art. 66 Aliens Police Act but may not be imposed as it would violate Art. 8 ECHR, their unlimited settlement permits can be revoked and a temporarily limited settlement permit 'settlement permit - limited' (Niederlassungsbewilligung - beschränkt) may be granted. As the two types of settlement permits concerned may only be granted after five years of legal settlement and the termination of the family relationship has no consequences after five years, Art. 28 Settlement and Residence Act has no scope of applicability with regard to family reunification of third country nationals. In principle the termination of family relationship is also relevant in respect of minor children. Due to the definition of family relation in Art. 2 § 1 No. 9 Settlement and Residence Act a family relationship between parents and minor children may cease to exist in the case of a marriage of the minor child as children are considered as family members only as long as they are unmarried. As it makes no difference according to this definition whether the child lives in a common household with his/her parents or not, marriage is the only possible case of termination of the family relationship between parents and their minor children. In such a case the child concerned has to meet the requirements for an autonomous settlement permit or for a settlement permit derived from his/her spouse, otherwise he/she won't be granted a further settlement permit. However, according to Art. 66 Aliens Police Act also in these cases regard has to be given to the right to respect for private and family life. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.36 | top Q: Article 16(4) (marriage of convenience)
Does the national law contain provisions on fraud or on marriages or partnerships of conveniences? Is so are the definitions, checks and practices in conformity with Article 16(4)? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Provisions to avoid marriages and adoptions of convenience were enforced in the new Austrian legislation entering into force in 1 January 2006. A definition can be found in the penal provisions in the Aliens Police Act. According to Art. 117 Aliens Police Act, an Austrian citizen as well as an alien entitled to reside in Austria is to be fined by court if he/she marries an alien without wanting to conduct family live in the meaning of Art. 8 ECHR and if he/she knows that the alien wants to refer to this marriage for the purpose of obtaining or renewing a settlement permit, for the prevention of expulsion or for the acquisition of Austrian nationality. The fine amounts to a maximum of 360 daily rates, the amount of the rates depends on the offender's income. The alien who wants to refer to such a marriage for the purpose of obtaining or renewing a settlement permit, for the prevention of expulsion or for the acquisition of Austrian nationality may not be fined, but the legislation provides for other sanctions (see below). If the Austrian citizen or the alien entitled to reside in Austria takes money for the marriage, also a prison sentence of up to one year may be imposed. Persons engaged in the arangement of such marriages of convenience in a professional manner may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to three years. The offender must not be sentenced if he/she informs the authorities on the marriage of convenience of his/her own free will. Art. 118 Aliens Police Act contains corresponding provisions on adoptions of convenience. According to this provision, Austrian citizens or aliens entitled to reside in Austria have to be fined by the courts if they apply to court for the allowance of the adoption of an alien, although there is no family life between them and the adopted person if they know that the person adopted will refer to this adoption for the purpose of obtaining or renewing a settlement permit, for the prevention of expulsion or for the acquisition of Austrian nationality. The fine amounts to a maximum of 360 daily rates, the amount of the rates depends on the offender's income. The adopted person may not be fined. If the Austrian citizen or the alien entitled to reside in Austria takes money for such an adoption, also a prison sentence of up to one year may be imposed. Persons engaged in the arrangement of such adoptions of convenience in a professional manner may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to three years. The offender must not be sentenced if he/she informs the authorities on the adoption of convenience of his/her own free will. To enforce the provisions aimed at the prevention of marriages and adoptions of convenience, Austrian legislation contains a number of provisions providing that authorities have to inform the aliens police authority on suspicions regarding marriages and adoptions of convenience. If the authority competent for settlement permits has the suspicion that there is a marriage or adoption of convenience this authority has to inform the aliens police authority (Art. 37 § 4 Settlement and Residence Act). The same goes for any other court of administrative authority (Art. 109 Aliens Police Act). The aliens police authority has to investigate the suspicion and disclose the results of their investigation to the authority that submitted the suspicion within three months. If there is no notification within this time limit, the court or authority may assume that there is no case of a marriage or adoption of convenience. The registry offices have to submit information on every marriage engaging a third country national to the aliens police authority irrespective of any actual suspicion (Art. 38 Personenstandsgesetz). The competent courts have to inform the aliens police authority on every application for the allowance of an adoption of an alien (Art. 105 § 5 Aliens Police Act). According to Art. 30 Settlement and Residence Act, married couples who do not live in a relationship amounting to family life in the meaning of Art. 8 ECHR may not rely on their marriage for the purpose of obtaining a settlement permit. Therefore persons applying for a renewal of their settlement permit may not rely on their marriage if the do not live together any longer. Also adopted children may not rely on the adoption when applying for a settlement permit, if the adoption was in the first place aimed at obtaining a settlement permit. According to Art. 60 § 2 No. 9 Aliens Police Act a residence ban on Austrian territory may be imposed if an alien relies on a marriage for the purpose of obtaining a settlement permit without ever having lived in a real marital relationship. There is a certain tension between the Austrian legislation and Art. 16 § 4 of the Directive in so far as Art. 16 § 4 mentions 'specific checks and inspections where there is reason to suspect'. Austrian law seems to be determined by a general suspicion against any marriage between bi-national couples. Especially the duties of several authorities to inform the police authorities on any marriage or adoption irrespective of any concrete suspicion is hardly compatible with Art. 16 § 4 of the Directive and with the right to respect for family and private life as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR. This obligation to disclose aspects of the private life of Austrian citizens or aliens entitled to reside in Austria and their partners only because of the fact that the partner is a third country national can hardly be justified under Art. 8 § 2 ECHR if there is no further suspicion. The aliens police authorities have to investigate this information and the legislation does not provide for any guidelines on the selection of the cases where further investigations have to be conducted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.37 | top Q: Article 17 (relevant considerations)
How has this clause, requiring that certain specific elements are to be taken into consideration in the decision making on residence permits and removal orders, been implemented in the national law? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: According to Art. 11 § 3 Settlement and Residence Act, a settlement permit may also be issued or renewed despite the non-compliance with the general requirements mentioned in Art. 11 § 2 No. 1 to No. 6 if this is necessary for the maintenance of private or family life for the purpose of Art. 8 ECHR. Therefore a settlement permit must not be withdrawn or has to be renewed respectively if otherwise there would be an unjustified interference with private or family life of the persons concerned. In connection with the proceedings on applications for a renewal Art. 24 § 3 Settlement and Residence Act expressly states that the renewal must not be refused if an expulsion would be impermissible.
Art. 66 Aliens Police Act contains a general provision on respect for private and family life. Therefore an expulsion constituting an interference with private or family life of the persons concerned is admissible only as long as it is justified under Art. 8 § 2 ECHR. As Art. 60 Aliens Police Act refers to Art. 66 Aliens Police Act, the same goes for residence bans. Therefore a settlement permit has to be renewed or must not be withdrawn if the duty of the person concerned to leave Austria would be incompatible with his/her rights under Art. 8 ECHR.
These provisions on respect for private and family life have already existed before Directive 2003/86/EC came into force. They are conditioned rather by Art. 8 ECHR. It seems that the Austrian legislator did not see an instigation to a particular implementation of Art. 17 Directive 2003/86/EC as this provision does not contain any stricter requirements than Art. 8 ECHR.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.38 | top Q: Article 18 (judicial review)
Are the sponsor and his family members entitled to have a negative decision reviewed by a court or independent tribunal? If so, please specify the relevant provisions in the national law and the scope of the judicial review (full review, review on legality or marginal control only)? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: Applications for a settlement permit for the purpose of family reunification have to be filed by the family member who wants to settle in Austria. Although the settlement permit is dependent on his residence rights, the sponsor is not a party to the proceedings concerning his/her family members. In general, the family member applying for a settlement permit may appeal against a negative decision. In general, the first application has to be filed in the country of origin and applications for a renewal may be filed with the authority in Austria (see above, Art. 5 § 3). If the application may be filed in Austria, the competent authority is the governor (Landeshauptmann) of the country (Bundesland) where the person concerned resides or is willing to reside (Art. 3 and Art. 4 Settlement and Residence Act). The governors may authorize the district authorities (Bezirksverwaltungsbehörden) or municipal authorities (Magistrat) respectively (in towns with an own statute) to decide on this applications in their name (Art. 3 § 1 Settlement and Residence Act). This is not a case of a delegation of the competence, but a sheer mandate that does not change the stages of appeal. In practise, the governors of all nine Austrian countries made use of this possibility. Therefore the district authorities decide on applications for settlement permits. Against a negative decision of first instance, an appeal may be filed to the Ministry of the Interior (Art. 3 § 2 Settlement and Residence Act). The Ministry of the Interior has got full jurisdiction. There is no ordinary appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Interior, but only the possibility of a complaint to the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court. If the application has to be filed at the Austrian consulate or embassy in the country of origin, the situation is a bit different. If the consulate rejects an application because it apparently does not comply with the formal requirements, there is no ordinary remedy against this decision (Art. 3 § 3, Art. 22 Settlement and Residence Act). However, the applicant may file a complaint to the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court. If the application is not rejected on formal reasons, the consulate has to forward it to the competent authority in Austria. There is a special provision with regard to negative decisions in connection with the maximum quota for new settlement permits (see above, Art. 8). If an application for a settlement permit may not be granted only because the yearly quota has already been exhausted, the authority has to postpone the decision (see above, Art. 8). On request of the applicant, the authority has to issue a formal decision (Bescheid) on the ranking in the register kept on the exhaustion of the quota. No appeal is admissible against such a decision (Art. 12 § 7 Settlement and Residence Act), but the applicant may file a complaint to the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court. In sum, there are no independent tribunals deciding on ordinary remedies against negative decisions on settlement permits. The only tribunals that may be invoked are the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. The Administrative Court cannot grant a settlement permit himself, but may only quash the administrative authority's decision and remand the case for a new decision. The Constitutional Court is only competent to decide on complaints with regard to violations of constitutional rights (including the ECHR, which is constitutional law in Austria) or the application of legislation incompatible with the constitution. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B.39 | top Q: Article 18 (judicial review)
Is (publicly funded) legal aid available for an appeal against a decision to refuse fam-ily reunification or to withdraw the residence permit of a family member? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: As no special provisions have been adopted concerning legal aid in proceedings in the field of aliens law, the general rules on legal aid in administrative proceedings also apply in regard of appeals against decisions refusing family reunification or withdrawing a residence permit. In respect of legal aid there is a fundamental difference between ordinary appeals against de-cisions of the authorities of first instance and complaints to the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. Legal aid is available only for complaints to these Courts, but not for ordinary appeals. This approach corresponds to the general regulation of legal aid in adminis-trative proceedings. The differences between appeals and complaints to the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court concerning legal aid are not least motivated by the fact that a complaint to these Courts has to be filed by an attorney whereas representation by a lawyer is not mandatory in regard of an appeal against a decision by the authority of first instance. Legal aid may be granted if the complainant is not able to bear the costs of the proceedings without an impairment of her/his necessary maintenance and the complaint is not manifestly without prospects of success. In practice legal aid is granted if the income of the person con-cerned amounts to less than about EUR 1.000,- plus an additional EUR 150,- for a partner without own incomes and for each child. If legal aid is granted an attorney is nominated who represents the complainant in the proceed-ings. The complainant has to bear neither the costs of the proceedings nor those of the repre-sentation by the lawyer. Only if a complaint to the Administrative Court is dismissed, the complainant has to bear the costs of the proceedings emerging for the authority whose decision she/he challenged unsuccessfully. In proceedings before the Constitutional Court there is no such duty to reimburse the costs of the authority. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C. Final questions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C.1 | top Q: What are in your view the main strengths and weaknesses of the Directive? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The main weakness of the directive is the lake of an expressly provided entitlement to family reunification and the rather wide margin of appreciation of the member states. In fact the Directive leaves open many options to the member states and contains only a limited number of binding provisions. In some aspects the Directive does not grant any rights that can not as well be derived from Art. 8 ECHR. In other aspects there seem to be certain tensions between the Directive and Art. 8 ECHR, even if the ECJ held that the Directive does not infringe the ECHR. [ECJ 27 June 2006, C-540/03.] The low standards of the Directive force the member states to apply the Directive in the light of Art. 8 ECHR. It would bee more favourable if the Directive would take due regard to the requirements of Art. 8 ECHR. As the member states are bound by the ECHR any way and the ECHR entitles to family reunification only under exceptional circumstances [See for example ECHR 30 January 2006, Sezen v. the Netherlands, Application Number 50.252/99.] this would not have led to a massive extension of family reunification. Special aspects that seem to be problematic in view of Art. 8 ECHR are the narrow definition of family members entitled to family reunification, the possibility to exclude family reunification if the spouse is under the age of 21 years or the waiting period provided for in Art. 8 of the Directive. With regard to Austria it has to be noted that the Directive led to some improvements. As the Austrian legislator seemed to be willing to restrict migration to Austria and family reunification as far as possible, also the low minimum standards of the Directive have a positive impact on the rights of migrants willing to reunite with their families. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C.2 | top Q: Please add any other interesting information on the Directive or its implementation in your country that might be relevant for our study. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: As already mentioned, the Directive has not been implemented in Austria by the adoption of a particular act, but in course of an extensive reform of the whole asylum and migration law. Therefore it is not clear which amendments were motivated by the Directive. In general the reform that entered into force on 1 January 2006 is determined by further restrictions for mi-gration to Austria. As family reunification was in practice the only possibility for third coun-try nationals to obtain a residence permit in Austria in the last years, the Austrian legislator seemed to be endeavoured to restrict family reunification. This has to be seen before the background of a policy that is rather hostile to foreigners. The latest reform was marked by an approach that seems to understand migration as a threat for public security and economic wealth rather than as a chance for society and an opportunity that should not be lost. The Directive has led to some improvements (see above, page 3). Although the Directive it-self contains only minimum standards that do not go far beyond the standard that had already been reached in Austria before the latest reform, it should be kept in mind, that also this stan-dard is not undisputed in Austria. The legislator seems to try to restrict family reunification by implementing new conditions in fields not covered by the Directive (such as the requirement to apply in the country of origin) or by restricting conditions also foreseen by the Directive (e.g. increasing the income requirement). Therefore the Directive may also be regarded as valuable if it helps to avoid a further deterioration of the rights to family reunification. The impact of the Directive therefore must not be underestimated. With regard to the quality of the legislation it should be noted that the legislator laid great emphasis on the speedy conduct of the reform of the asylum and migration law rather than on the legal quality. The time limits for comments on the drafts were very short and it seems that the concerns submitted by legal authors as well as by NGOs was not really taken into consid-eration. Also the editorial quality is rather low. Parts of the legislation are regulated far more complex than required by the subject. There are also a number of unclear formulations and references to other provisions. There are also some referrals to provisions that were contained in the draft set up by the government but were in fact not set into force. Another practical problem resulted from the fact that the new asylum and migration acts en-tered into force without provisional regulations providing for time limits to end pending pro-ceedings on base of the legislation in force until 31 December 2005. As there were also major changes in the competences of the different authorities, pending procedures had to be contin-ued by other authorities which led to delays. It seems that by the date of the entry into force of the new legislation not all authorities were instructed and prepared sufficiently. Soon after the new legislation entered into force it became clear that numerous provisions in the Settlement and Residence Act and the Aliens Police Act are unclear and lead to unreasonable conse-quences. It seems that some of the new provisions were not really well considered. It may be assumed that the Constitutional Court will not only clarify some of the unclear provisions but also abrogate some provisions because they are not sufficiently determined and therefore not in conformity with the constitution. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C.3 | top Q: Please send us copies of the relevant laws and regulations, of any legal or other publications on the Directive or of judgments of national courts applying or interpreting the Directive, if possible in electronic form. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: The following documents are annexed to this questionnaire:
a) laws and regulations:
c) Publications:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D. Table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D.1 | top Q: This table refers only to mandatory provisions of the Directive.
Please choose for each article one of the four alternative labels:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| answer Austria | A: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers on this question by other countries:
AUS BEL CYP CZE DEN EST FIN FRA GFR GRE HUN IRE ITA LAT LIT LUX MAL NET POL POR SVK SVN SPA SWE GBR |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||