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 Free movement of workers in the EU and occupational pensions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.

Square Pegs and Round Holes: The Free Movement of Persons Under EEA Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 165-186
Author(s):  
Christian NK FRANKLIN
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Free Trade Association ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhilst the European Union’s aim of achieving an ‘ever closer Union’ is not an objective of EEA cooperation, homogeneity demands that we follow the same path: as the Union gets ever closer, so too does EEA cooperation, in light of the demands of the fundamental principle of homogeneity. This is particularly well demonstrated by looking at developments in the field of the free movement of persons. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court) in this field shows that in situations where homogeneity is put to the test, there seems little to suggest that a more national sovereignty-friendly approach has been adopted than under EU law. Notwithstanding the integral differences between the EU and EEA legal constructs, the EFTA Court has proven highly adept at keeping pace with EU developments in the field through a number of bold and creative interpretations of EEA law, and by using different tools to arrive at uniform conclusions.

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.

scholarly journals Exploring the limits of social solidarity: welfare tourism and EU citizenship

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 4-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Mantu ◽  
Paul Minderhoud
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Social Solidarity ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wide Scale ◽  
The Eu

Political debates concerning the free movement of (poor) EU citizens (mainly from the newer EU Member States) have focused upon the twin issues of abuse of free movement rights and welfare tourism, despite the lack of meaningful evidence that the two are actually taking place on a wide scale in the EU. This article discusses the increasing political contestation of EU mobility as captured by notions such as, welfare tourism and poverty migration. The analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on issues of social rights and EU citizenship shows a noticeable shift towards stricter interpretations of the scope of social solidarity for mobile EU citizens. We argue that the coupling of these two aspects of EU mobility raises questions about the scope of EU citizenship and its nature as a fundamental status.

scholarly journals From Diversity to Coordination: A European Approach to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessio M. PACCES ◽  
Maria WEIMER
Keyword(s):  
National Policy ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Safe Spaces ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
The Face ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing the face of Europe. Member States’ divergent responses to this crisis reveal a lack of unity in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. At best, this undermines the effectiveness of health protection within the European Union (EU). At worst, it risks breaking up the Union altogether. Divergent national responses to COVID-19 reflect different national preferences and political legitimacy, and thus cannot be completely avoided. In this article, we argue that these responses should be better coordinated. Without coordination, the price for diversity is high. Firstly, there are damaging spill-overs between Member States, which undermine key pillars of European integration such as the free movement of persons and of goods. Secondly, national policy-making is easily captured by local interest groups. Our proposal is that the EU indicates – not mandates – a European exit strategy from asymmetric containment policies of COVID-19. In particular, the EU should help Member States procure and validate tests for infection and immunity. The EU should also indicate ways in which testing could be used to create safe spaces to work, thereby restoring the free movement of persons and of goods. We see a great advantage in such EU guidance: it could improve mutual learning between Member States, which have faced different timings of the epidemic and learned different lessons. Although the local political economy has so far delayed learning and undermined cooperation, the EU can mitigate both effects and indicate the way for Europe to resurrect united from the ashes of COVID-19.

23. Citizenship of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter reviews EU citizenship law. It considers the rights of free movement and residence of EU citizens, political rights of citizenship, and Directive 2004/38 on the rights of free movement and residence for EU citizens and their families. The status of EU citizenship created by EU law has been criticized on various grounds, including the thinness of the rights created and their economic focus, the conditions to which they are subject, the reinforcement of the distinction between third-country nationals and EU nationals, the limited impact of the new electoral rights, and the reluctant pace of implementation. On the other hand, the legal rights of citizenship have been expanded by the European Court of Justice, even in the face of vocal Member State opposition. The case law in this area continues to develop and the chapter provides a considered evaluation of this difficult body of law.

13. EU citizenship

2020 ◽  
pp. 352-383
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
The Eu

This chapter traces how the free movement of persons developed, culminating into a constitutional identity for EU nationals that extends rights to economically inactive free movers as well. EU citizenship was formally established in 1992, and can be used as a marker to separate two distinct eras of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on free movement of persons. The chapter then considers the personal and material scope of EU citizenship, and looks at CJEU case law on the free movement of EU citizens between 1992 and 2004. It also assesses the impact of the Citizenship Directive in 2004, as well as the impact of Brexit on EU citizenship. The controversy surrounding the development of ‘citizenship rights’ is of particular interest given the Brexit referendum; limitless immigration from the EU was found to be one of the primary reasons why the UK voted to leave the EU.

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 Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document