George’s scenario concerns rights
of residence under the Citizens Rights Directive and administrative formalities
for family members who are not nationals of a Member State. This involves George’s
reliance on his rights as a worker under the Citizens Rights Directive on the
basis of a cross borders employment contract between the UK and Republic of
Ireland. In this scenario, Hiba is recognised as a secondary beneficiary to George’s
“worker’s rights” as his “spouse” for the purposes of Article 1(b)(a) of the
Citizens Rights Directive 2004. Resultantly, Article 7(2) of the Citizens
Rights Directive 2004, provides for the right of residence for TCN family
members of the primary beneficiary. Thusly, in accordance with Paragraph 1(d)
of Article 7, Hiba has the right of residence for more than three months on the
territory of a Member State for the purposes of accompanying or joining a Union
citizen “worker” for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b). Pursuant to the
fulfilment of administrative formalities contained within Articles 9 and 10 of
the Citizens Rights Directive, as a non-EU family member, Hiba must then apply
and receive a residence card within three months of her date of arrival;
provided she fulfils the required obligations and documentation necessitated
for the successful completion of a residence card application. The residence
card provided for by Article 10(1) shall then be valid for five years from the
date of issue and allow Hiba to reside with George in Northern Ireland. Formerly,
in accordance with Akrich C 109/01, in order to benefit as a secondary
beneficiary to the Citizens Rights Directive 2004; “a national of a non-Member
State married to a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member
State when he or she moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the
Union is migrating or has migrated”. However, this position has since been
reversed by the decision in C-127/08 Metock whereby the Court determined that
the Directive does not make its application conditional on the beneficiaries having
previously resided in a Member State. As a result, non-EU nationals; who are
spouses of a Union citizen, may enjoy rights conferred by the Citizens Rights
Directive irrespective of how they entered the host Member State. 

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 15.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

I believe that by providing the previous history of the defendant circumstances, all of us will comprehend the reason that compels any victims to commit a crime. It is true that the respondents are responsible for the murder and what many would suggest is a hash penalty. First, there is need to learn the life history of the defendants, and if it is true that one got ruined by the environment since birth, then their actions are not to be blamed. Probably their history suggests that they have mental illness and they suffer emotional problems. The murder is not a true-crime where the victims had a prior plan to kill, and from their history, they have never been identified with other crimes. For an individual that has a mental problem, it should be considered that they did the crime willingly. The social disorganization of the environments that an individual is brought up affects their social and physical environment, and as a result, it can catalyze current behavioral choices that one make. Sadly, the defendants were alienated from the world and execution should not be their penalty and as a criminology expert, there is need to consider to pardoning the victims. For one of the defendant it is indisputable that he grew up in a religious environment and was homeschooled and as a result, he has suffered some mental and emotional problems which significantly influenced crimes.
For obvious reasons, the defendants are to be blamed for the murder, but the capital penalty will not resolve the crime problem. If the victims had planned for the crime, they would have ordinarily concentrated on escaping detection, apprehension, and conviction. Thus it implies that the victims had mental problems. No any severest punishment will discourage criminals who expect to evade arrest. Therefore I suppose that another penalty is given to the convicts.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out