Civis Europeus Sum – Union Citizenship and the Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Verica Trstenjak
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Tax Relief ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Since its formation in 1950s as the economic community, the EU has created the monetary union and is increasingly evolving also into a political union – part of which is also a union or Europe of citizens. This article explores the development and the existing EU legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Union citizenship. The article emphasises the importance of the case law of the CJEU for the development of this concept, focusing especially on the case law pertaining to access to social security benefits in another Member State, the rights of students, tax relief, and personal rights such as the right to write a name in a certain way and the right to family life. Case law of the CJEU has, inter alia, confirmed that even economically inactive Union citizens lawfully residing in another Member State have a right to access to social benefits under the same conditions as the Member State’s own nationals. The concept of the Union citizenship is of key importance in the development of EU law, as it expands the scope of the applicability of the provisions on free movement of persons and other fundamental freedoms. New challenges and questions linked to Union citizenship are arising over time, which should also be regulated at the EU level in the future. Therefore, further development of this concept can still be expected in the EU.

6. Free movement of persons

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

Communicating with the European Composite Administration

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 883-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Reichel
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

One of the reasons for introducing a “Union” citizenship in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty was to provide a direct channel between the citizens of the Member States and the EU. In contrast to many other international organizations, the role of the individual has been central to the European project since its inception. In its famous 1962 judgment given inVan Gend en Loos,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) underscored the importance of the “vigilance of individuals concerned” seeking to protect their European rights in the new legal order through judicial control.2 The right to directly vote on the representatives of the European Parliament had already been introduced in the 1970s. The citizens of the Member States were thus equipped with two classic forms of political participation even prior to the introduction of Union citizenship: law making and the legal adjudication of individual cases. Nonetheless, whether these channels are sufficient to guarantee the citizens effective democratic means to influence legislation and exercise control of EU institutions in the rather complex multilevel legal system of the EU has been continuously debated.

The self-perpetuation of EU constitutionalism in the area of free movement of persons: Virtuous or vicious cycle?

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANJA WIESBROCK
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Inherent Feature ◽  
The Face ◽  
Initial Resistance ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyses the mutual influence and self-perpetuating cycle of legitimacy of EU legal scholars and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in expanding and broadening the free movement rights of Union citizens and their family members. It is argued that legal scholars have played a dual role in promoting the constitutional paradigm of an ever-expanding scope of directly enforceable residence and movement rights in the EU. First, by presenting the expansion of free movement rights as an inevitable outcome of the EU constitutional order based on directly enforceable individual rights, scholars have played a significant role in legitimizing the jurisprudence of the Court in the face of initial resistance from the member states. Second, legal scholars have been an important source for the Court of Justice in developing its case law in this area. The Advocates General in their opinions have drawn on an expanding field of scholarship presenting the expansion of free movement rights as an inherent feature of the EU as a constitutional legal order. Spurred by the objective of turning the EU into more than an internal market, the opinions of the Advocates General have mostly been followed by the Court. Legal scholars have thus served not only as a legitimizing force, but also as a source of inspiration for the perceived constitutionalization of free movement rights in the EU.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

scholarly journals The ‘Europe with the Regions’ before the Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Panara
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Regional Languages ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the regions. It argues that there is a discrepancy between the progressive framing of a ‘Europe with the regions’ in the political sphere and the limited impact of the Court in this field. This discrepancy does not emerge everywhere, nor does it emerge with the same intensity in all sectors. Indeed, in a number of areas, the CJEU has acknowledged the role and responsibilities of the regions. Examples include the right/duty of the regions to implement EU obligations, the protection of regional languages, as well as the ‘sufficient autonomy’ test developed by the CJEU in relation to state aid. There is no ‘ideological opposition’ of the CJEU to an increasing ‘regionalisation’ of the EU. There are, however, structural hindrances that prevent the Court from promoting further advancements of the status of the regions in the European edifice, particularly as regards their participation in EU processes. Since the EU remains a ‘union of states’, the ‘Europe with the regions’ has developed so far, and is likely to continue to develop, via advancements reflected in policy-making practices, soft-law arrangements and Treaty amendments rather than via the ‘judge-made federalism’ of the Court.

6. Free movement of persons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

scholarly journals Przeniesienie siedziby statutowej spółki do innego państwa członkowskiego w świetle swobody przedsiębiorczości

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 199-208
Author(s):  
Robert Stefanicki
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Restrictive Measure ◽  
Business Conditions ◽  
The Eu

TRANSFER OF THE COMPANY’S REGISTERED OFFICE TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EU FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENTIn the light of the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, all normative regulations that hinder or significantly impede the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty are considered as limitations. Deviations from the above rule should be justified, and the restrictive measure should be appropriate to ensure the accomplishment of the adopted objective and not going beyond what is necessary to achieve it. Therefore, the question arises as to what extent the company’s personal status may be determined by the law of each Member State and how the solution in this aspect is important from the point of view of implementing business conditions.

The EU Citizenship Directive: A Commentary

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The EU Citizenship Directive defines the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area. It applies to EU citizens and their family members who move to visit or reside in another Member State. This might at first seem like a straightforward definition, but immediately questions arise. Who determines if a person is an EU citizen at all? What about dual citizens of two Member States, or of one Member State and a non-Member State (a ‘third State’)? What is the position of EU citizens who move to one Member State, and then return to their home Member State? This book provides a comprehensive commentary of the EU’s Citizens’ Directive tracing the evolution of the Directive’s provisions, placing each article in its historical and legislative context. Special emphasis is placed on highlighting the connections and interactions between the Directive’s constituent provisions so as to permit a global appreciation of the system of free movement rights to which the Directive gives effect. Each provision is annotated containing a detailed analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice as well as of related measures impacting upon the Directive’s interpretation including European Commission reports and guidelines on the Directive’s implementation.

Some Issues on Public Procurement Principles

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
Albena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractPublic Procurement regulation is mainly justified by economic considerations. The reasons for this are based on the assumption that through the introduction of competitiveness in the respective markets of the Member States, their liberalization as well as integration will follow. As an essential part of the Internal Market, one of the main goals of Public Procurement is to guarantee the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, which is accomplished specifically through transparent procedures in which participants are placed on equal and non-discriminatory terms. The purpose of this article is to show how the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union fills in a gap in the EU law regarding Public Procurement due to a lack of explicit regulations on some issues.

scholarly journals The Right to Family Reunion vs Integration Conditions for Third-Country Nationals

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrycja Dąbrowska-Kłosińska
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Family Reunion ◽  
Law System ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Individual Assessment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Migration Law ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

Abstract The article explores the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the clash between the fundamental right to family reunion and the powers of Member States to protect national identity as a manifestation of sovereignty. The recent case-law pertinent to national measures imposing pre-entry, integration conditions on foreigners and the latter rights under the Directive 2006/83/EC (‘FRD’) on the right of third-country nationals to family reunion provides a basis for the analysis. The aim of this article is to establish and appraise the Court’s approach to the conflict in question. My claim is that the CJEU should have been more restrictive in its reasoning regarding the pre-entry integration measures, and that its interpretation based on individual assessment, proportionality principle and effet utile may not be sufficient for a scrutiny of national powers under FRD. I thus argue that the Court should be more proactive to provide a constitutional, contextual and systemic interpretation of the right to family reunion under the FRD, Article 7 and 24 of the EU Charter and the EU migration law system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document