The other day, the Russian-speaking population of Estonia took to the streets to protest against the shameful status of 'non-citizens'. During the action sanctioned by the authorities, in the predominantly Russian-speaking district of Tallinn, Lasnamäe, the logo of the largest Russian-speaking United People's Party of Estonia and a mock-up of a 'grey passport' were raised on two balloons. As Gazeta.Ru reports, the protest action 'Grey Passports - a Shame for Europe' was carried out mainly by young people.
'These people, and above all young people, feel disadvantaged from the political, economic and moral points of view,' said Andrei Zarenkov, one of the action's organizers. 'They do not have the right to be elected to local and state government bodies, or to vote in parliamentary elections. They cannot work in state and municipal executive bodies, and even in the private sector they are asked about citizenship, after which refusal follows.'
After all three Baltic countries joined the united Europe, the EU urgently had to develop a directive that would legalize the status of such a huge number of non-citizens. In fact, Europe introduced the concept of 'permanent resident of the European Union'. Estonia's non-citizens can count on the automatic granting of EU permanent resident status thanks to Directive No. 2003/109/EC. It was adopted on November 25, 2003, and EU countries, including Estonia, must incorporate it into national legislation by January 23, 2006.
The said directive defines the status of third-country nationals who have long resided in the territory of a given country. All Estonian non-citizens are meant by this. Non-citizens need the new status in order to be able to legally work, study or live in other EU countries for more than three months, as well as to travel there without visas (after Estonia joins the Schengen Agreement). Additional advantages include the right to petition the European Parliament and the ombudsman, as well as the right in some cases to receive official EU documents.
The directive is designed to bring the rights of non-citizens closer to those of citizens, so that people can move freely around Europe and the labor market becomes more mobile. However, the directive clearly states that third-country nationals must not become a burden on the EU. Therefore, applicants for EU permanent resident status will have to prove that they have a stable income and sufficient money to support themselves and their relatives.
Material circumstances are not decisive in granting EU permanent resident status, the directive says. The main criterion is the time of legal residence in the territory of that country. According to the directive, five years is a sufficient period for filing a petition. However, the applicant will have to prove that during this time he has already put down roots. Thus, during these five years he must not have been absent from the country for more than ten months.
At their discretion, countries may impose 'compliance with a certain level of integration' as another condition for obtaining the status (a possible field of action for advocates of the state language). A decision on granting the status of third-country nationals who are permanent residents must be obtained from local authorities no later than six months after filing the petition.
The Estonian authorities are in no hurry to follow the instructions of the EU leadership. According to Andrei Zarenkov, the issue of non-citizens' rights remains unresolved despite criticism of Tallinn from the EU and the Council of Europe. 'The existence of stateless people in Estonia is a real shame for Europe,' said one of the action's organizers.
As Mark Entin, Director of the Institute of European Law, reported, 'Theoretically, the directive has already entered into force, but it should be taken into account that each EU country has two years to incorporate it into its legislation, adapting it to local conditions. After January 23, 2006, in accordance with EU law, any persons residing in the EU will be able to challenge in ordinary court proceedings actions by authorities that contradict the directive. At the same time, in a number of respects, the directive preserves a certain freedom for states.'