the status the person possesses the corresponding right (item 24). The state - member can not refuse the person in the right to residing on the ground that the passport or identification card has not been represented if the person can give any other obvious proofs of the state belonging (item 25). Detention or deportation of the person is an extremely in connection that the legal formalities connected with monitoring of foreigners have not been observed, mention the essence of the right to residing and are obviously disproportionate infringements (item 40). In the opinion of the Court, inability to execute the legal formalities connected with admission, movement and residing of foreigners, does not have any danger for public policy and public safety (item 42) .the same time the Court has noted, that granting directly by the Treaty of the right of residing on the territory of Community does not exclude the opportunity to demand observance of the certain administrative formalities for recognition of the right of the citizens of the Union by the state [32] (item 49). On condition of observance of restrictions stipulated in the law of the EU the state can undertake measures on deportation of the person if the citizen of the state - member can not confirm observance of the corresponding formalities (item 55) .to the citizens of the Union of the opportunity of realization of suffrages on the territory of other states - members is considered as much more serious obligation, than the right of free movement of persons in comparison within the framework of Community up to the introduction into action of the Maastricht treaty [33]. In 2006 the Court of the European Communities for the first time has considered cases on the question on interrelation of the citizenship of the Union and the right to participate in elections to the European Parliament.the case Amen and Savendger [34] the Court had to make the decision on interpretation of some articles of the Treaty having essential value for the sanction of dispute between the citizens of the Netherlands, residing in overseas territory Aruba, and the local executive agency of Hague, refused to bring the corresponding persons to the lists of voters. First of all, the Court of EU had to consider the question, whether the regulations of Part II of the Treaty about the citizenship of the Union are distributed to the citizens of the states - members residing in one of the overseas territories, mentioned in item 3 Article 299 of the Treaty [35]. The court has paid attention to the fact hat any person having the citizenship of the state - member, is the citizen of the Union (item 27) and can refer to the rights stipulated by Part II of the Treaty even in case of residing in one of the overseas territories (item 29) .state Council of the Netherlands were interested in the fact whether regulations of item 2 Article 19 of the Treaty can be interpreted in view of Article 189 [36] and item 1 Article 190 [37] of the Treaty in the way that the citizen of the Union residing in the overseas territory, has the right to participate in elections to the European Parliament. In the opinion of the Court, the Treaty does not contain rules, precisely and unequivocally determining who has the right to take part in voting and to stand as the candidate at the corresponding elections (item 40), and at the modern level of development of the right of the Community the definition of the number of persons, having corresponding rights, refers to the competence of each of the states - members (item 45). The Court of EU has paid attention to the fact that according to Part IV of the Treaty general regulations of the given document are not distributed to the overseas countries and territories, except specially stipulated cases (item 46). Proceeding from regulations of Articles 189 and 190, states - members are not obliged to carry out elections to the European Parliament on the corresponding territory (item 47). According to the Court, regulations of Part Two of the Treaty can not be considered as giving rights to the citizens of the Union. To participate in elections of the European Parliament not limited by any conditions (item 52). Accordingly, it is impossible to recognize basically unreasonable introduction of requirements, connected with residence, at definition of voters and candidates at elections to the European Parliament (item 55) .consideration of the case in the national court the applicants paid attention to infringement of the principle of equality in application as the right to participation in elections has been given to the citizens of the Netherlands residing in the states not included in the Community, however the citizens residing in overseas territories have been deprived. In this connection the Court has formulated the common thesis that at the modern level of development of the law of the Community nothing interferes with the states - members to determine in ...
