Moving between Member States without an identity card or passport - A fine amounting to 20% of the amount of the offender’s average net monthly income, is not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence

In its Judgment in Case C-35/20 (6.10.2021) , the European Court of Justice ruled that a Member State may require its nationals to carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State, irrespective of the means of transport used and the itinerary, subject to sanctions. While EU law does not preclude the imposition of a criminal penalty, it does preclude disproportionate penalties, such as a fine amounting to 20% of the offender's average net monthly income.

A, a Finnish national, made a round trip between Finland and Estonia in August 2015 on a pleasure boat. During that trip, he crossed the international waters between Finland and Estonia. He was the holder of a valid Finnish passport, but did not have it with him during that trip. As a result, during a border check in Helsinki on his return, A was unable to produce his passport or any other travel document, although his identity could be established on the basis of his driving licence.

The syyttäjä (prosecutor, Finland) prosecuted A for a minor border offence. Under Finnish law, Finnish nationals must carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State by any means of transport and by any route, or when entering Finland from another Member State, on pain of criminal sanctions. At first instance, A was found to have committed an offence by crossing the Finnish border without a travel document. However, no penalty was imposed on him, as the offence was minor and the amount of the fine that could be imposed on him under the Finnish criminal law regime, based on his average monthly income, was excessive, the total amount of the fine being EUR 95 250. When the prosecutor’s appeal against that decision was unsuccessful, the prosecutor brought an appeal before the Korkein oikeus (Supreme Court, Finland).

 The latter court then decided to ask the Court of Justice whether the Finnish legislation at issue in this case, and in particular the rules on criminal penalties under which crossing the national border without a valid identity card or passport is punishable by a fine of up to 20% of the offender’s net monthly income, is compatible with the right of citizens of the Union to freedom of movement provided for in Article 21 TFEU.[1]

Assessment of the Court

In its judgment, the Court clarifies, first of all, the conditions under which an obligation to carry an identity card or passport may be imposed, on pain of sanctions, possibly of a criminal nature, when travelling to a Member State other than that of which the person concerned is a national. In that regard, the Court notes, first, that the words ‘with a valid identity card or passport’ used in Directive 2004/38, [2] clarifying Article 21 TFEU, mean that the exercise by nationals of one Member State of their right to travel to another Member State is subject to the condition that they carry one of those two valid documents. The purpose of that formality linked to free movement[3] is to facilitate the exercise of the right to free movement by ensuring that any person benefiting from that right can be easily identified as such in the context of a possible check.

Consequently, a Member State which obliges its nationals to carry one of the documents referred to when they cross the national border to move to another Member State contributes to compliance with that formality. Secondly, with regard to the sanctions that may be imposed on a Union citizen who fails to comply with that formality, the Court states, with reference to the autonomy of the Member States in that respect, that the Member States may provide for sanctions, if necessary of a criminal nature, provided that they comply, in particular, with the principles of proportionality and nondiscrimination.

 The Court therefore concludes that the right of citizens of the Union to freedom of movement does not preclude national legislation by which a Member State requires its nationals, on pain of criminal sanctions, to carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State, irrespective of the means of transport used and the route taken. However, the modalities of those sanctions must comply with the general principles of Union law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination.

The Court also reached the same conclusion as regards the requirement to carry an identity card or passport when a national of a Member State enters its territory from another Member State. However, the Court specifies that, while the presentation of an identity card or passport may be requested when a national of a Member State returns to the territory of that State, the obligation to be in possession of such a document cannot be a condition for the right of entry. Finally, the Court examines whether Article 21(1) TFEU and Directive 2004/38, read in the light of the principle of proportionality of sanctions laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, [4] preclude rules on criminal sanctions such as those laid down under Finnish law for crossing the national border without a valid identity card or passport.

In that regard, the Court observes that, while it is open to Member States to impose a fine in order to penalise a breach of a formal requirement relating to the exercise of a right conferred by Union law, that fine must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Where, as in the present case, the obligation to carry a valid identity card or passport is disregarded by a beneficiary of the right to freedom of movement, who is the holder of such a document but has merely failed to carry it when travelling, the offence is not serious. Therefore, a heavy financial penalty, such as a fine amounting to 20% of the amount of the offender’s average net monthly income, is not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. (curia.europa.eu / photo pixabay.com)

Full text of the decision is available here

[1] Having regard to the provisions on border crossing set out in Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

[2] Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)

[3] Recital 7 of Directive 2004/38

[4] Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Prohibiting contact between children and their mother in custody and contact rights case was unjustified (ECtHR)

Image
The case of X and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22) concerned custody decisions and contact rights following the separation of X from her children’s father in 2018. It also concerned the reassignment of X’s court case to a particular judge.  In Chamber's judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards X’s right to a tribunal established by law, and violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with respect both to:  - the applicant children, as regards the order to remove them from X’s (their mother’s) care in March 2020, their not being represented in the contact and custody proceedings, and their not being allowed contact with their mother;  - X, for not being allowed contact with her children.  The Court found in particular that the President of the District Co...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

European Data Protection Board clarifies rules for data sharing with third country authorities and approves EU Data Protection Seal certification

Image
During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published  guidelines on Art.48 GDPR  about data transfers to third country authorities and  approved a new European Data Protection Seal. Αs stated in a press release from the EDPB, in a highly interconnected world, organisations receive requests from public authorities in other countries to share personal data. The sharing of data can, for instance, be of help to collect evidence in the case of crime, to check financial transactions or approve new medications. When a European organisation receives a request for a transfer of data from a ‘third country’ (i.e. non-European countries) authority, it must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In its guidelines, the EDPB zooms in on Art. 48 GDPR and clarifies how organisations can best assess under which conditions they can lawfully respond to such requests. In this way, the guidelines help organisations to make a decision on whether...
Read more