Brussels, 06/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - In his opinion in Case C-364/10, which pits Hungary against Slovakia, delivered on 6 March, Advocate General Yves Bot took the view that the Slovak Republic did not infringe the directive on the free movement of citizens in the EU (2004/38/EC) when, in August 2009, it refused to allow Hungarian President Laszlo Solyom to enter its territory. Movements of heads of state fall within the sphere of diplomatic relations, which are matters for the member states, in accordance with international law.
The case dates from July 2010 when the Hungarian state brought an action for failure to fulfil an obligation against the Slovak Republic because if its infringement of the above mentioned directive (on the right of citizens of the EU and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states) after the Slovak authorities, basing their decision on the same directive, had refused to grant entry into Slovakia to the Hungarian president who wanted to travel to the town of Komarno on 21 August 2009 to take part in the ceremony inaugurating a statute of Saint Stephen, the founder and first king of Hungary, and to deliver a speech there. The visit was deemed to be inappropriate in particular as it was to take place on the day of the 41st anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops, which included Hungarian troops. Hungary asked the Commission to bring infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice against the Slovak Republic, based on Directive 2004/38/EC. The Commission considered, however, that European Union law did not apply to visits made by the head of one member state to the territory of another member state and that, in those circumstances, the alleged infringement was unfounded.
The advocate general upheld that view. Solyom intended to go to the town of Komarno in the conduct of his role as head of state and not as an ordinary citizen on a visit of purely private interest. While the movement of EU citizens between member states is governed by EU law, those made by heads of state fall within the sphere of diplomatic relations, which remains within the ambit of the member states. These visits should not be understood in terms of freedom of movement: they depend on the consent of the host state and the detailed conditions defined by the latter within the framework of its competence. Bot went on to say that member states ought not to exercise their diplomatic competence in such a manner that it could lead to a lasting break in diplomatic relations between them. Such a break would, in fact, be incompatible with the integration process and, in these circumstances, would be a matter for EU law. That is clearly not the case here and the Slovakian refusal to grant entry should be seen as a simple incident. Finally, Bot stated that the Slovak Republic was wrong to invoke Directive 2004/38 as a legal basis for refusal, but this does not amount to an abuse of rights within the meaning of the case-law of the Court. (FG/transl.rt)