3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits, notably the fact of being a threat to public order or public security or of being an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system; expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the ho ...[+++]st Member State's social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 and Article 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and not on considerations of general prevention and the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36) and persons have to be given at least one month to leave;

3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits and that, specifically, expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the host Member State's social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 and Article ...[+++] 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and on no account on considerations of general prevention (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36);

3. Recalls that Directive 2004/38 circumscribes the possibility of expelling a Union citizen within very clearly defined limits and that, specifically, expulsions decisions have to be assessed and decided individually, taking into consideration the personal circumstances (Article 28), procedural safeguards have to be applied (Article 30), access to judicial and administrative suspension and redress procedures shall be guaranteed (Article 31), expulsions of citizens on grounds of representing an unreasonable burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system is not sufficient in itself to justify automatic expulsion (recital 16 and Article ...[+++] 14), any restriction of freedom of movement and residence based on grounds of public policy, public security or public health cannot be invoked to serve economic ends, shall be proportional and be based solely on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and on no account on considerations of general prevention (Article 27), sanctions laid down by Member States must be effective and proportionate (Article 36);

As do many others, I well understand the concept of civil liberties, and I am always, through dint of experience, wary or leery of any measure which curtails individual liberties or allows the power of the state to interfere with an individual's rights of freedom and security of the person.

K. whereas the authorities of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, despite strong representations from the European Union, international organisations and other members of the international community, continue to take measures that limit freedom of expression, of the press, of association, of assembly and of religion,

He thought that it was vital to combat the formation of monopolies or cartels, as individuals might otherwise see their freedoms seriously restricted.