Примери за използване на He is a national на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
(1)No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national.
Any other natural person being a resident in the Union,unless that person is in the country of which he is a national.
That judgment concerns a provider of services,established in the Member State of which he is a national, who provided services to recipients residing in other Member States.
No coincidence between the Member State in which a citizen of the Union has his origins and the State of which he is a national.
Хората също превеждат
Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of the state of which he is a national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his own will.
Directive 2004/38 applies only where a citizen moves orresides in a Member State other than that of which he is a national.
Unless the receiving State consents,he shall not be a national of the receiving State or, unless he is a national of the sending State,a permanent resident of the receiving State.
It is likewise his duty to hold any public office to which he may be elected by popular vote in the state of which he is a national.
According to the Court's case-law, a Union citizen who,while residing in the Member State of which he is a national with a family member who is a third-country national, simultaneously exercises his freedom of movement in another Member State, benefits from the right of family reunification in respect of that member of his family in the Member State of which he is a national.
It is the duty of every person to vote in the popular elections of the country of which he is a national, when he is legally capable of doing so.
In other words, it appears, in principle, that the conditions for the application of Article 3(1)of Directive 2004/38 cannot be satisfied where the Union citizen moves to the Member State of which he is a national.
Who has never exercised his right of free movement,who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State”.
Applicability of Directive 2004/38 in a case in which the Union citizen, who has made genuine and prior use of his freedom of movement,travels to the Member State of which he is a national.
The American States have on repeated occasions recognized that the essential rights of man are not derived from the fact that he is a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of his human personality;
(1) No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual orof a collective measure, from the territory of a State of which he is a national.
Except with the consent of the receiving State,he shall be neither a national of the receiving State, nor, unless he is a national of the sending State,a permanent resident of the receiving State.
If he has no domicile within the Special Union but is a national of a country of the Special Union, the country of which he is a national.
The Court of Justice ruled first of all, that the directive on the exercise of freedom of movement governs only the conditions determining whether an EU citizen can enter andreside in Member States other than that of which he is a national and does not confer a derived right of residence on nationals of a non-EU State who are family members of an EU citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national. .
The Court finds next that Directive 2004/38 does not confer any derived right of residence on third‑country nationals who are family members of an EU citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national.
In that context, the Raad van State asks, in essence,whether EU law confers a derived right of residence on a third‑country national who is a family member of an EU citizen where that citizen resides in the Member State of which he is a national but regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.
In the present case, such an interpretation would lead to the paradoxical result which, at the very least, gives me pause for thought,that Ms McCarthy could accompany her husband when he travels to all the Member States apart from the State of which he is a national!
As I observed at point 58 of this Opinion, the right to be accompanied by a third-country national family member is granted, according to the Court's case-law, to a Union citizen, whether active(50) or non-active,(51)who returns to the Member State of which he is a national after exercising his freedom of movement(prior exercise) in another Member State in which he resided with that family member.
The conditions for granting that derived right of residence must not be stricter than those provided for by Directive 2004/38 for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by settling in a Member State other than that of which he is a national.
Indeed, the effect of such a refusal is that such a Union citizen may be denied the possibility of returning to the Member State of which he is a national together with his spouse.15.
The Court has accordingly held that, since, under a principle of international law, a Member State cannot refuse its own nationals the right to enter its territory and remain there and since those nationals thus enjoy an unconditionalright of residence there, Directive 2004/38 is not intended to govern the residence of a Union citizen in the Member State of which he is a national.
Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement,who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State.
In the light of these two examples, am I to consider automatically, without asking myself any questions,that there is always correspondence between the Member State in which a Union citizen has his origins and the State of which he is a national?
Such an interpretation would avoid in particular, as is apparent from point 75 of this Opinion, illogical results,such as the fact that Ms McCarthy is entitled to accompany her husband when he travels to all the Member States apart from that of which he is a national.
Failure to recognise the possibility of limiting a derived right of residence flowing directly from Article 20 TFEU andof adopting an expulsion measure would mean that a Member State would be unable to expel a third-country national who is guilty of such an offence if he is the parent of a child who is a Union citizen resident in the Member State of which he is a national.