Abstract This paper analyses the case-law of the European Court of Justice on the scope and limits of cross-border access of economically inactive Union citizens to national systems of social assistance. The author de-constructs and challenges the weak rhetoric of transnational solidarity generously deployed by the Court of Justice at the beginning of the expansive cycle of its case-law on the transnational social protection rights of mobile EU citizens. The most recent case-law shows, in fact, a spectacular retreat from this rhetoric in tune with the neo-nationalistic and social-chauvinistic moods prevailing in Europe.
This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.
European integration, the internal market and free movement of persons and services are important aspects of EC labour law and EU industrial relations. As a result of EU enlargement and the emphasis on free movement within the EU, the problems of posting of workers, low-wage competition and social dumping are high on the agenda. This is illustrated by the epochal and much-debated Laval and Viking cases from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Recently, the European Commission has launched a package which deals with issues of double taxation and discriminatory tax treatment in the area of inheritance and estate tax. In the paper the Commission discusses ten cases in which the European Court of Justice examined the inheritance tax rules of Member States. In eight out of the ten cases it concluded that the Member States in question breached EU rules on the free movement of capital and/or freedom of establishment. For example, on the 3rd of September 2014, the ECJ entered/made a judgment resolving that the Spanish Inheritance Tax should impose restrictions on the free movement of capital, one of the fundamental principles of the EU’s Single Market. Taking into consideration the merits of the case the Court of Justice finally concluded that the situations between resident and non-resident taxpayers or between goods located in Spain or abroad are comparable and that therefore the applicable tax treatment should be the same.
The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrines in Article 2 (formerly Article B) of the Treaty on European Union under the new Title I called “Common Provisions” (which contains, with some amendments, the provisions of the former Articles A to F) a new objective for the Union, namely:“to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”
This chapter focuses on one element of judicial review which is particularly affected by deference: proportionality analysis. It argues that the connection between proportionality and deference is not accidental. Constitutional scholarship has overly focused on the benefits of proportionality analysis for judges. Yet, the test equally creates a series of duties which can become a burden, a burden which courts will try to reduce by resorting to deference techniques. The chapter offers a historical, theoretical, comparative and empirical argument in support of this thesis. It traces the development of proportionality in EU law and compares it with the American ‘standards of review’ model. An empirical analysis of free movement case law reveals that the more frequently the European Court of Justice applies proportionality, the more frequently it opts for deferential forms of scrutiny.
European Court of Justice decision of 25 July 2008, Case C-127/08, Metock et al. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – EU citizens and their third-country family members – ECJ largely reverses Akrich case-law – Dividing line between national and Community competences on immigration – ‘Reverse discrimination’ not a matter of concern for Community law – Analysis of repercussions of decision on EU and national legal orders
Free Movement of Persons and European Solidarity Revisited