Analysis of the Free Movement of Goods and Services Policy

Analysis of the Free Movement of Goods and Services Policy The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed an extensive body of case law on free movement in relation to persons, goods, services and establishment. Over the years, the Courts approach to free movement as evolved and adapted to the modern European Union (EU) today. Through comparison of the case law it will be clear that how the Court deals with free movement is similar in all the areas of persons, goods, services and establishment. In the beginning the CJEU would only strike down legislation which was discriminatory to nationals from other Member States. It then began to strike down rules that were non-discriminatory and more recently rules that act as a barrier or hindrance to market access. Analysing these areas of the Courts jurisprudence, it will be evident that the Courts early approach was a more literal interpretation of the treaties towards a more teleological approach that expanded the Courts powers but perhaps this is ultimately needed if the CJEU was to every achieve the Internal Market.[1] As already mentioned in the early case law the CJEU would strike down national legislation due to them being discriminatory on the basis of nationality.[2] This approach was clearly based on the treaty articles that prohibited this.[3] Rules where initially struck down because they were obviously discriminatory such as in Commission v French Republic[4]in relation to workers and Humblot[5] with regards to goods. This approach was echoed across the freedoms.[6] It was clear though, that from the jurisprudence across these areas striking down barriers that were obliviously discriminatory would not be enough as often there was national legislation that was indirectly discriminating against nationals.[7] Therefore indirect discrimination was present from the beginning to tackle the double burden that was often placed by Member States on free movement. This move by the Court is comparable across the freedoms such as Uglioa[8] in relation to workers. Critically though the Court might have created indirect discrimination criteria to stop dual burden but this has raised problems from the Court as not all indirectly discriminatory rules create such a burden.[9] Even with these potential issues the practice was echoed across the jurisprudence of goods, services and establishment.[10] The case of Dassonville[11] further increased the Courts ability to strike down national legislation for being discriminatory measures having equivalent effect in relation to goods.[12] This is interesting as the expansion of the Court powers arguably goes beyond a literal interpretation of the treaty articles. It had a big effect not only on the subsequent cases regarding goods but also free movement of persons, services and establishment.[13] The CJEUs application of a wider definition in Dassonville[14] is comparable to the other freedoms particularly services and establishment.[15] The broader scope the Court has given themselves across the freedoms is a move towards a more cohesive internal market. On the other hand though, the Court was always very clear though from the beginning that free movement of persons, goods and services are not absolute.[16] This is evident from the Treaty articles in so far as certain discriminatory restrictions can be justified.[17] This indication by the Court might initially seem to be just following the Treaties but ultimately, they expanded the remit of these justifications in relation to indirectly discriminatory restrictions in all of the areas through case law.[18] The early jurisprudence shows that the Court was not willing to strike down non-discriminatory legislation such as in Chemical Farmaceutici.[19]This all changed though and the Court no longer stopped at discrimination but expanded to striking down barriers that were non-discriminatory.[20] This was possibly in order to fulfil the aims of the treaty provision, in so far as to create an successful internal market.[21] This resulted in further autonomy for the CJEU through case law in 80s but mainly 90s.[22] The CJEU developed an approach to free movement that restrictions which are non-discriminatory in nature fall within the scope of the relevant treaty articles and have to be examined for validity.[23] Similarly to the earlier jurisprudence the Court applies this thinking to all the free movement areas.[24]Bosman [25] open up this idea within free movement of persons and expanded the Courts ability to strike down national legislation.[26] Cassis de Dijon[27]had a big effect on the area of non-discriminatory national rules arguably more than Bosman[28], when you compare the effect Cassis de Dijon had.It is seen as a landmark decision in the area of indistinctly applicable restrictions.[29] It and the subsequent cases have extended the Courts ability to declare a barrier to trade unlawful.[30]In a sense it has reduced the need for harmonisation and instead has advanced the internal market ideals through case law.[31] In comparison to this development within the free movement of persons, Cassis de Dijon resulted in a surge of cases.[32] This resulted in CJEU departing from the previous case law in Keck[33] to deal with the flood of cases. It is interesting to note that at the time of the Cassis de Dijon judgement was at a time of legislative stagnation which was impeding the development of the Internal Market.[34] Therefore the Courts decision meant that the negative integration rate was speed up.[35] Arguably the Court was attempting to full the requirements of Article 26 of the TFEU and but as they couldnt do this within the treaty itself they needed to expand the parameters of their power. Similar to the free movement of persons and goods, services jurisprudence developed to include non-discriminatory barriers, meaning that anything which impedes free movement is struck down.[36] As in the earlier cases and to the other areas where it is seen to be a dual barrier that barrier is struck down such as in Sager.[37] Interestingly AG Jacobs makes a direct comparison to Cassis di Dijon here and that cases approach to non-discriminatory restrictions.[38] Similarly, the free movement of establishment the old point of view discrimination only can be seen in Commission v Belgium[39]which allowed member states to make their own rules in the absence of Community harmonisation. Klopp[40] shows the change in the Courts jurisprudence for establishment in the same way as the other freedoms. The key case here is Gebhard[41]which repeated the view the Court highlighted in Sager.[42] According to Spaventa, Gebhard[43] was not only an expansion but a qualitative leap for free movement rights.[44] It indicates a further move away from a literal interpretation towards a more teleological approach to the internal market that can be seen across the freedoms. The success of the implementation of non-discriminatory ground has dispelled any argument, according to Connor, of ever full achieving an Internal Market on the basis of discrimination alone.[45] It is important note that as the CJEUs capacity has increased across the free movement, the Member States ability to justify them continued to grow exponentially.[46] The Court has been clear that the creation of the internal market through the harmonisation of laws does not mean that all barriers to trade will be abolished.[47] Instead they will engage in an assessment of balance.[48]The Court will essential look to see if the measure can be justified and if the restriction was appropriate and ensure that it doesnt go beyond what is necessary.[49] The more the CJEU gives itself the ability to strike down legislation, the more the Court creates justifications through case law to allow for this but it needs to be careful to ensure that it does not step into the legislative realm.[50] The increase in ways to justify restrictions has been demonstrated across free movement and as the Court expands its parameters into the market access test the justifications continue to grow.[51] In recent years the Court has again expanded free movement provisions through the market access test.[52] The Court refined their approach from Keck[53]in the cases of Commission v Italy[54]and Mickelson and Roos[55]and embraced the market access test.[56] Not only does this test include measures that are a barrier to goods entering the market but also once the good is in the market.[57] This shows a clear expansion of the Courts powers in relation to free movement of goods. Comparing this development to the other areas, establishment is   another area where this test has clearly been discussed and accepted by the court in Commission v Spain.[58] These cases demonstrate the CJEUs liberalising view of the free movement doctrine in recent years.[59] In comparison, the case law in the other areas of free movement seems to suggest that the market access test is are less severe than the restrictions in Commission v Italy and Mickelson.[60] The market access test has be subject to criticism with some questioning the basis of the test and whether the CEJU is potentially violating the separation of powers within the EU.[61] Some academics believe this market access test is a development as a result of Union Citizenship and this is the basis for the test.[62] The test marks a move towards convergence and harmonisation of the internal market.[63] The idea of citizenship seems to have taken hold and it is evident that it has had an impact on free movement.[64] Tryfonidou argues that these judgements indicate a move away from assessing impact of barriers on cross-border trade to promoting free movement of commerce by Union Citizens.[65] Ultimately the jurisprudence shows that the market access test has become the main principle for the free movement cases.[66] To conclude, the CJEU has moved from a discriminatory based approach to restrictions on the free movement of goods and services to non-discriminatory one to a market access test. The jurisprudence in the area isnt clear cut but the general understanding of academics seems to be that the move towards a non-discriminatory approach was needed to have a successful internal market. The subsequent move to a market access test seems to be founded on the idea of union citizenship and perhaps a deeper idea of ultimately, in so far, as possible having the freedoms converge. Through comparison, it is clear that each section of the free market is different but ultimately the CJEU feels similar. What is evident though is that the removal of regulatory barriers CJEU feels is needed, across the free movement of persons, goods, services and establishment, in order to fulfil the aims of the internal market.[67] [1] Eleanor Spaventa, From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a Non-Economic European Constitution, (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 743 [2] Paul Craig and Grainne De Bà ºrca, EU Law: Texts, Cases, And Materials (6th edn, OUP 2015) 758 [3] Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ OJ C326 Article 26 and Article 45 Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union [4] Case 167/73 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1974] ECR 359 [5] Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscau [1985] ECR 1367 [6] Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Benoà ®t and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 [7] Tim Connor, Goods Persons Services and Capital in the European Union/ Jurisprudential Routes to Free Movement (2010) German Law Journal 159 [8] Case 15/69 Wà ¼rttembergische Milchverwertung-Sà ¼dmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola [1970] ECR 363 [9] n7, 165 [10] Case 71/76 Jean Thieffrey v. Conseil de lOrdre des Avocatsà   la cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765; Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 122 [11] n6 [12] Ailbhe ONeill, The Path Not Taken: The Global Approach to the Free Movement of Persons, (200) 3(1) Trinity College Law Review 111 [13] Case 53/76 Procureur de la Rà ©publique de Besanà §on v Les Sieurs Bouhelier and others [1977] ECR 197; Case 249/81 Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Buy Irish Case) [1982] ECR 4005; Case 45/87 Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Dunalk Water Supply) [1988] ECR 4929 [14] n6 [15] Case C-55/94 Gebhard v Consiglio dellOrdine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165 [16] Eleanor Spaventa, Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos (2009) 34(6) European Law Review 914 [17] Article 36, 45, 52 of the TFEU [18] Laurence W. Gormley, Free Movement of Goods within the EU Some issues and an Irish Persepctive, (2011) 46(1) The Irish Jurist 74 [19] Case 140/79 Chemical Farmaceutici SpA v DAF SpA [1981] ECR 1 [20] n12, 112 [21] n7, 169 [22] Peter Oliver and Wulf-Henning Roth, The Internal Market and the Four Freedoms (2003) 41 Common Market Law Review 407 [23] n12, 112 [24] n12, 112 [25] Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des socià ©tà ©s de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club lià ©geois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations europà ©ennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921 [26] Case C-190/98 Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH [2000] ECR I-493;Case C-464/02 Commission of the European Communites v. Kingdom of Denmark [2005] ECR I-7929; [27] Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fà ¼r Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649 [28] n25 [29] Andrew McGee and Stephen Weatherhill, The Evolution of the Single Market Harmonisation or Liberalisation   (1990) 53(5) The Modern Law Review 578 [30] ibid, 581 [31] ibid, 581 [32] Sunday Trading Cases: Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B Q plc [1989] ECR 3851; Case C-169/91 Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich City Council v B Q plc [1992] ECR I-6635 [33] Cases C-267 and 268/91 Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard[1993] ECR I-6097 [34] n12, 123-124 [35] n12, 123-124 [36] Case 427/85 EC Commission v. Germany [1988] ECR 1123 [37] Case C-76/90 Manfred Sà ¤ger v Dennemeyer Co. Ltd   [1991] ECR I-4221 [38] ibid [39] Case 221/85 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium [1987] ECR 719 [40] Case 107/83 Order des avocats au Barreau de Paris v Onno Klopp [1984] ECR 2971 [41] Case 55/94 Gebhard v Consiglio dellOrdine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165 [42] n12, 112 [43] n41 [44] Eleanor Spaventa, From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a Non-Economic European Constitution, (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 743 [45] n7, 168 [46]n18, 74 [47] n29, 581 [48] n7, 182 [49] n7, 195; C-434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen,[2006] I-9171 [50] n16, 925 [51] n22, 434 [52] Max S. Jansson and Harri Kalimo, De Minimis Meets Market Access: Transformations in the Substance and in the Syntax Of EU Free Movement Law?'(2014) 51(2) Common Market Review 523 [53] n33 [54] Case C-110/05 Re Motorcycle Trailers: Commission of the European Communities v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34 [55] Case C-142/05 Ã…klagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273 [56] n16, 915 [57] n16, 923 [58] Case C-400/08 Commission of the European Communities v Spain [1995] ECR I-4165 [59] n2, 806 [60] n52556 [61] n16, 925 [62] A. Tryfonidou, Further Steps on the Road to Convergence Among the Market Freedoms, (2010) 35 European Law Review 36 [63] ibid, 49 [64] Pedro Caro de Sousa, Quest for the Holy Grail-Is a Unified Approach to the Market Freedoms and European Citizenship Justified? (2014) 20(4)European Law Journal 499 [65] n tryfonidou50 [66] Sacha Prechal and Sybe De Vries, Seamless Web of Judicial Protection in the Internal Market? (2009) 5 European Law Review [67] Damian Chalmers, European Union Law: Text and Materials (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2014)

A Short Analytical Paper of Abraham Lincoln’s “a House Divided” Essay

The House Divided Speech was addressed by Abraham Lincoln on June 1958. He delivered the speech upon his acceptance of Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as the senator of the state. Thus the speech became a very important launching campaign for his success in politics thus giving him a national limelight that saw him in the elections to the presidency in 1860.The speech primarily addressed on the issue of slavery in America. Abraham Lincoln delivered his speech aimed at establishing his strong beliefs towards the acts of slavery. The speech was also meant to point out a differentiating factor of beliefs from Stephen Douglas and the rest of the top governmental officials who seemed to practice corruption in their transactions. According to Abraham Lincoln, â€Å"A House divided against itself cannot stand†. This was the major crucial theme of Abraham Lincoln’s speech. From this important statement,Licoln meant that the American nation could not in whatever terms or state face a positive survival phase when it was composed of a state of half-slavery and half-free. He meant that only one of those two states could only exist. Thus his bold statement was that he expected that the division that existed had to cease so as to embrace success and good governance. Lincoln’s speech helped rouse to the people of America the recognition of the extent to which slavery had gone. Lincoln’s speech is still relevant in this 21st century in that even today, each nation should embrace unity in all its undertakings whether political, social and economic. He believed that the ideals of a nation with freedom for all could not have a chance of coexistence whether socially, morally or in legal terms under one nation. Thus slavery should either be accepted among all people or be universally denied. A universal truth is clearly bears a clear significance from Lincoln’s statement to the extent that such a statement even pervades a lot of importance to the modern society and even the governments in power today. Such relevance can be clearly seen in the experiences in Sudan. Continued irreconcilable differences in culture and religion against the people of Sudan saw Southern Sudan seceding to become the republic of South Sudan. Such success for secession bears credit from the prophetic work of Abraham Lincoln. A division had always existed between the people from Northern Sudan who were associated with Muslim religion and the people from the Southern Sudan who were associated with Christianity. This scenario bred a situation of ethnic and cultural differences between the two states to the extent where secession could be avoided. Even today, the American nation is still faced with challenging political divisions and differences especially between the parties of the Republicans and the Democrats. The unwillingness of the two parties to arise to compromised solutions has always been evident in most of the major recent crises facing the nation. Clear evidence is the recent crisis on the debt ceiling where the Republicans were on the favor of maintaining cuts on spending as opposed to the Democrats who were advocating for an increase in taxes so as to increase revenue collection in the country. Further differences saw a compromised situation of debt ceiling being arrived at as the solution. This led to the country facing an economic disaster as a result of the oppositions from the two strong political parties. In the recent world, the institution of marriage can be compared to the speech of Abraham Lincoln. Marriage is a union of two people who are bound to each other by law. Division is prone to occur in a marriage situation in case of a divorce. For the married partners to embrace endured togetherness and unity in their marriage, they must appreciate common interests of concerns in their practices. In case one of the partners dissent from the unity and togetherness set up, the marriage is susceptible to division brought about by breaking of the legal bonds that hold the marriage partnership in unison. Continued lack of an amicable compromised solution between the two conflicting partners will thus lead to separation. Continued separation will see the two partners seek a divorce in a court of law and the marriage will fail completely. Most marriages nowadays are failing as a result of continued disagreements of interests between the married couple. As per words of Lincoln that a divide house cannot stand, thus the divided marriage partnership cannot even endure survival thus it breaks up. Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of loyalty and even alliances creating a boundary to the opposing group or alliance. The existence of the two opposing groups as a whole sees each group maintain conflicting interests. Continued disagreement leads to one group conquer the other resulting to a failing side and a winning side. Ultimately such results create division in the nations. Thus, Abraham Lincoln’s works from the speech â€Å"A House Divided† bears a lot of significance and relevance in our modern world.

Three Things Are Necessary For The Salvation Of Man

â€Å"Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what we ought to believe; to know what we ought to desire and to know what we ought to do.†- (Thomas Aquinas) Thomas Aquinas or known otherwise as, the doctor of the church (Angelicius Doctor), is considered to be one of the most important and influential medieval philosopher and theologians of all time. It has been said that Thomas Aquinas was immensely influenced by scholasticism and Aristotle. When it comes to Saint Thomas’s early life, he was born somewhere along the lines of 1225 or 1227; some proclaim him to being born on January 28th, 1225. Saint Thomas was one of eight children; and he was most likely born in his father’s castle of Roccasecea, in the Neapolitan Territory. Saint Thomas’s father was Count Landulf, and he was an old high-born south Italian family. While Thomas’s mother was Countess Theodora of Theate, and she was of noble Norman descent. After tracing back through his family lineage, it is known that Thomas Aquinas’s family members were descendants of Emperors Frederick I and Henry VI and some of his family were considered to be of lo wer nobility. It was also stated that he was descendants of Kings who were from Aragon, Castile, and France. Before Thomas was born there was a story that went around saying that when his mother was pregnant with him, a holy hermit told her that her son would one day become a great learner and achieve unequaled sanctity. Although it seems that his parents andShow MoreRelatedThe Theory Of Science And Christian Belief1345 Words   |  6 Pagesprinciples, they becomes â€Å"purposeless† and â€Å"mindless.† Limiting the Creator to mere man-made principles shows a lack of faith in Him. Even theistic evolutionists agree that God is not subjected to the law of man. Commentaries of the Bible offer a different spin on familiar stories. Through research, reaching Robert Alter’s The Five Books of Moses brought the Pentateuch into a light otherwise unexplored. On page twenty-three of Alter’s commentary – as he discusses Genesis chapter two verse twenty-five –Read MoreChristian Worldview From Other Worldviews1475 Words   |  6 Pageswould love to answer your questions regarding Christianity, and I have so much respect for your desire to seek truth. Although there are many things that separate the Christian worldview from other worldviews, I will only discuss the three that I believe are the most important. Specifically, the belief in grace rather than works as the means for salvation, the belief in the hypostatic union, and the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Ch rist. I know some of these terms are confusing, so I will beRead MorePersonal Statement Of Faith By God881 Words   |  4 PagesPERSONAL STATEMENT OF FAITH As a man purchased by God through his Son, I believe it is necessary to clearly state, in a concise manner, the â€Å"closed-handed† truths I believe as guided by Scripture. My Statement of Faith summarizes essential Christian beliefs, shows unity in Christ, and guards me from potential error. I affirm these gospel truths, with the understanding that my confidence in these truths grows progressively over time. These beliefs are great cause for joy. Far more than just wordsRead MoreSimilarities Between Christianity And Islam1332 Words   |  6 PagesChristianity, and Islam may see things differently, they all fundamentally hold the same values and codes. To Islam, the Prophet Mohammad’s teaching is a complete and final revelation. On the other hand, according to the bible, Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the true lord and savior that will grant you the access to heaven in the afterlife. Judaism is founded by Abraham and it is the base from which both of the other two religions sprung. Even though the three religions differ in many areasRead MoreChristian, Islam, and Judaism1397 Words   |  6 PagesChristianity, and Islam may see things differently, they all fundamentally hold the same values and codes. To Islam, the Prophet Mohammad’s teaching i s a complete and final revelation. On the other hand, according to the bible, Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the true lord and savior will grant you the access to heaven in the afterlife. Judaism is founded by Abraham, and it is the base from which both of the other two religions sprung. Even though the three religions differ in many areasRead MoreChristianity, Hinduism, And Islam1054 Words   |  5 PagesEvery religion has its own goal, and their own believes, however there are also many similarities in their believes. Although the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam may see things differently, they basically hold the same values and codes. To Islam, the Prophet Mohammad’s teaching is a â€Å"complete and final revelation†. On the other hand, according to the bible, Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the true lord and savior will grant you the access to heaven in the afterlife. JudaismRead MoreAnalysis Of Concord, By Jakob Andreae And Martin Chemnitz943 Words   |  4 Pagesby a group of theologians led by Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. This book was intended to grasp all of the prefaced doctrines and beliefs and to put together the Lutheran Church as we know it today. It opens with a preface, and then goes into three past creeds that establish what a Christian is, then followed by the Ausburg Confession, Which is the literal written out beliefs of The Lutheran Church. Inside of the Ausburg confession, there are 28 articles, including a preface and a conclusionRead MoreSome Christian Precepts and Concepts1025 Words   |  4 Pagesrelationship the same way or act out the principal beliefs to the same extent. Different denominations represent their beliefs - the foundations for their lived expression - in different manners. Some of the Christian principal beliefs include, Revelation, Salvation, the Trinity, and the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. It is through environmental ethics and ethical teachings, and the practice of baptism that adherents are able to connect to their one God and attain a healthy relationship with God to aRead MoreThe Doctrine Of The Trinity1361 Words   |  6 Pagesto us and how we should relate to Him. The doctrine of the Trinity explains that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, God exits one in essence but three in person. The Trinity doe s not divide God into three parts. These definitions express three crucial truths: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, but there is only one God. In other words, each person of the Trinity has their own â€Å"office,† and eachRead MoreThe Path to Salvation1106 Words   |  5 Pagesare a monotheistic people; they believe in and worship the one and only, all-powerful being. This being is comprised of three distinct natures: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three, although distinct from one another, come together collectively in one Divine Person known as the Trinity, or God. God is the ultimate creator of all things. When these things, namely the human race, began their sinning ways, they were in dire need of a Savior. These wretched ways are expressed

Ancestry of Albert Einstein - Family Tree

Albert Einstein was born in the city of Ulm in Wurttemberg, Germany, on March 14, 1879 into a non-observant Jewish family. Six weeks later his parents moved the family to Munich, where Einstein spent most of his early years. In 1894, Einsteins family moved to Pavia, Italy (near Milan), but Einstein chose to remain behind in Munich. In 1901 Albert Einstein received his diploma from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, as well as Swiss citizenship. In 1914, he returned to Germany as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute in Berlin, a position he held until 1933. After Hitlers rise to power, life for professional Jews in Germany became very uncomfortable. Albert Einstein and his wife, Elsa, moved to the United States and settled in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1940 he became a US citizen. Professor Albert Einstein is best known for his special (1905) and general (1916) theories of relativity. First Generation 1. Albert EINSTEIN was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm, Wurttemberg, Germany, to Hermann EINSTEIN and Pauline KOCH. On 6 January 1903 he married his first wife, Mileva MARIC in Berne, Switzerland, with whom he had three children: Lieserl (born out of wedlock in Jan 1902); Hans Albert (born 14 May 1904) and Eduard (born 28 July 1910). Mileva and Albert divorced in February 1919 and a few months later, on 2 June 1919, Albert married his cousin, Elsa EINSTEIN. Second Generation (Parents) 2. Hermann EINSTEIN was born on 30 August 1847 in Buchau, Wurttemberg, Germany and died on 10 October 1902 in Milan, Friedhof, Italy. 3. Pauline KOCH was born on 8 February 1858 in Canstatt, Wurttemberg, Germany and died on 20 February 1920 in Berlin, Germany. Hermann EINSTEIN and Pauline KOCH were married on 8 August 1876 in Canstatt, Wurttemberg, Germany and had the following children:    1 i. Albert EINSTEIN ii. Marie Maja EINSTEIN was born on 18 November 1881 in Munich, Germany and died on 25 June 1951 in Princeton, New Jersey. Third Generation (Grandparents) 4. Abraham EINSTEIN was born 16 April 1808 in Buchau, Wurttemberg, Germany and died on 21 November 1868 in Ulm, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. 5. Helene MOOS was born on 3 July 1814 in Buchau, Wurttemberg, Germany and died in 1887 in Ulm, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Abraham EINSTEIN and Helene MOOS married on 15 April 1839 in Buchau, Wurttemberg, Germany, and had the following children:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   i. August Ignaz EINSTEIN b. 23 Dec 1841 ii. Jette EINSTEIN b. 13 Jan 1844 iii. Heinrich EINSTEIN b. 12 Oct 1845 2   iv. Hermann EINSTEIN v. Jakob EINSTEIN b. 25 Nov 1850 vi. Friederike EINSTEIN b. 15 Mar 1855 6. Julius DERZBACHER was born on 19 February 1816 in Jebenhausen, Wurttenberg, Germany and died in 1895 in Canstatt, Wurttemberg, Germany. He took the surname KOCH in 1842. 7. Jette BERNHEIMER was born in 1825 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany and died in 1886 in Canstatt, Wurttemberg, Germany. Julius DERZBACHER and Jette BERNHEIMER were married in 1847 and had the following children:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   i. Fanny KOCH was born 25 Mar 1852 and died in 1926. She was the mother of Elsa EINSTEIN, second wife of Albert EINSTEIN. ii. Jacob KOCH iii. Caesar KOCH 3   iv. Pauline KOCH Next Fourth Generation (Great Grandparents)    Albert Einstein Family Tree, Generations 1-3 Fourth Generation (Great Grandparents) 8.  Rupert EINSTEIN  was born on 21 July 1759 in Wurttemberg, Germany and died on 4 April 1834 in Wurttemberg, Germany. 9.  Rebekka OVERNAUER  was born on 22 May 1770 in Buchau, Wurttenberg, Germany and died on 24 Feb 1853 in Germany. Rupert EINSTEIN and Rebekka OBERNAUER were married on 20 Jan 1797 and had the following children:   Ã‚  Ã‚   i. Hirsch EINSTEIN b. 18 Feb 1799 ii. Judith EINSTEIN b. 28 May 1802 iii. Samuel Rupert EINSTEIN b. 12 Feb 1804 iv. Raphael EINSTEIN b. 18 Jun 1806. He was the grandfather of Elsa EINSTEIN, Alberts second wife. 4   v. Abraham EINSTEIN vi. David EINSTEIN b. 11 Aug 1810 10.  Hayum MOOS  was born about 1788 11.  Fanny SCHMAL  was born about 1792. Hayum MOOS and Fanny SCHMAL were married and had the following children: 5 i.   Helene MOOS 12.  Zadok Loeb DOERZBACHER  was born in 1783 in Dorzbach, Wurttemberg, Germany and died 1852 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany. 13.  Blumle SINTHEIMER  was born in 1786 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany and died in 1856 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany. Zadok DOERZBACHER and Blumle SONTHEIMER were married and had the following children: 6 i.   Julius DERZBACHER 14.  Gedalja Chaim BERNHEIMER  was born in 1788 in Jebenhausen, Wurttenberg, Germany and died in 1856 in Jebenhausen, Wurttenberg, Germany. 15.  Elcha WEIL  was born in 1789 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany and died in 1872 in Goppingen, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Gedalja BERNHEIMER and Elcha WEIL were married and had the following children: 7 i.   Jette BERNHEIMER Next  Ã‚  Fifth Generation (Great Great Grandparents)    Albert Einstein Family Tree, Generation 4 Fifth Generation (Great Great Grandparents) 16.  Naftali EINSTEIN  was born about 1733 in Buchau, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany 17.  Helene STEPPACH  was born about 1737 in Steppach, Germany. Naftali EINSTEIN and Helene STEPPACH were married and had the following children: 8   i. Naftali EINSTEIN 18.  Samuel OBERNAUER  was born about 1744 and died 26 Mar 1795. 19.  Judith Mayer HILL  was born about 1748. Samuel OBERNAUER and Judith HILL were married and had the following children: 9   i. Rebekka OBERNAUER 24.  Loeb Samuel DOERZBACHER  was born about 1757. 25.  Golies  was born about 1761. Loeb DOERZBACHER and Golies were married and had the following children:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   i. Samuel Loeb DERZBACHER was born 28 Jan 1781 12 ii. Zadok Loeb DERZBACHER 26.  Leob Moses SONTHEIMER  was born in 1745 in Malsch, Baden, Germany and died in 1831 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. 27.  Voegele JUDA  was born in 1737 in Nordstetten, Wurttemberg, Germany and died in 1807 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. Loeb Moses SONTHEIMER and Voegele JUDA were married and had the following children: 13   i. Blumle SONTHEIMER 28.  Jakob Simon BERNHEIMER  was born 16 Jan 1756 in Altenstadt, Bayern, Germany and died 16 Aug 1790 in Jebenhausen, Wurttemberg, Germany. 29.  Leah HAJM  was born 17 May 1753 in Buchau, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany and died 6 Aug 1833 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. Jakob Simon BERNHEIMER and Leah HAJM were married and had the following children:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   i. Breinle BERNHEIMER b. 1783 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany ii. Mayer BERNHEIMER b. 1784 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany 14 iii. Gedalja BERNHEIMER iv. Abraham BERNHEIMER b. 5 Apr 1789 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany d. 5 Mar 1881 in Goppingen, Baden-Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. 30.  Bernard (Beele) WEIL  was born 7 Apr 1750 in Dettensee, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany and died 14 Mar 1840 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. 31.  Roesie KATZ  was born in 1760 and died in 1826 in Jebenhausen, Wà ¼rttemberg, Germany. Bernard WEIL and Roesie KATZ were married and had the following children: 15   i. Elcha WEIL