When did Sarkozy introduce this new regulation ?

[Deimos]

One MEP has responded to me letters stating that all EU countries had until April 2006 to introduce Directive 2004/38/EC into their national law.  they were not allowed to do it after that point.  To quote the MEP, From the date of transposition you became responsible for ensuring that you had comprehensive sickness insurance cover.

Did Sarkozy introduce the 2004/38/EC into French law before April 2006 (i.e. when he was in the Interior Ministry before becoming el Presidente).  If after that date - too late to introduce it at all.

Because by my estimates

Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile.

Article  L122-1  En vigueur

  Créé par Loi n°2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 art. 23 II (JORF 25 juillet rectificatif JORF 16 septembre 2006).

En vigueur, version du 25 Juillet 2006

LIVRE Ier : DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES APPLICABLES AUX ÉTRANGERS ET AUX RESSORTISSANTS DE CERTAINS ÉTATS.

TITRE II : ENTRÉE ET SÉJOUR DES RESSORTISSANTS DES ÉTATS MEMBRES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE OU PARTIES À L'ACCORD SUR L'ESPACE ÉCONOMIQUE EUROPÉEN ET DES RESSORTISSANTS SUISSES AINSI QUE SEJOUR DES MEMBRES DE LEUR FAMILLE.

Chapitre II : Droit au séjour permanent.

Is dated July 2006 !!!  Too late.

Have I missed something here ?

Ian

[Helen]

I think that they were 'told' by the EU to implement it, if they hadn't the doctrine of direct effect could have been implemented and that could give rise to compensation claims from people that had beeen effected by its non implementation.

I don't think being late with it invalidates the law. The EU is supposed to be reporting on the process of implementation next year. France is on the list of countries that have transposed it into nationa law.( a few still haven't)

I've been reading more about the doctrine of direct effect and found this : 'Article 5 EC requires Member States to "take all appropriate measures" to ensure fulfilment of Community obligations. And this means that courts must interpret national law so as to ensure the objectives of Directive are achieved. This requires an effective remedy that has a deterrent effect and is adequate in relation to the damage sustained.'      

 From  http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_3_2_eu_sources/08_doctrine_of_direct_effect.htm

Interesting in view of the (up till now) ignoring  of  the permanent residence clause and also  of the clause that says 'The provisions of this Directive shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions laid down by a Member State which would be more favourable to the persons covered by this Directive.' (I think this has been raised before)