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.

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 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.

Migrating with Dignity: Conceptualising Human Dignity Through EU Migration Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Nika Bačić Selanec ◽  
Davor Petrić
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Status ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Migration Law ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

Human dignity in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Human dignity in EU migration law, particularly in the area of asylum law and irregular migration – Requirement of dignified treatment of third-country nationals in the EU – Relationship between human dignity and substantive values such as tolerance, identity, rights, justice, and the law – Human dignity as a moral right, a legal status, and a political status – Human dignity as a moral principle with a legal pedigree, which underpins determinations of the scope of rights of third-country nationals in EU migration law

scholarly journals Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) versus data protection – Is it done in the right way?

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-138
Author(s):  
Julia Wojnowska-Radzińska
Keyword(s):  
Current System ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the processing of personal data under Regulation 2017/226 is compatible with the principle of proportionality in the light of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Regulation 2017/2226 provides the EES system which is the only system that collects the entry/exit data of all third-country nationals entering the Schengen area for a short stay, whether via a land, sea or air border. The EES replaces the current system of manual stamping of passports.

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.

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.

Anti-discrimination Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union before and after the Economic Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalie Frese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Income inequality is at an all-time high in the Europe Union (EU). Implications from the economic crisis which broke out in 2008, and in particularly the austerity measures introduced by Governments in Eurozone countries receiving bailout programmes, created further inequalities, for example between men and women. This paper starts from the hypothesis that whereas other institutions in the EU have played a direct role in tackling the economic crisis, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may have played a more indirect role, which nonetheless can have an overlooked value in particular for setting direction for legal norms of equality and anti-discrimination in Europe. The paper therefore addresses a legal-empirical question: To what extent does the anti-discrimination case law of the CJEU reflect the increased inequalities in Europe following the economic crisis? Based on a dataset of all anti-discrimination cases of the CJEU, I conduct a quantitative analysis of changes in the case law from before to after the economic crisis. I find that there is only weak evidence, which suggests that the case law of the CJEU reflects the increased inequalities following the economic crisis.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

scholarly journals Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
Monika Zalnieriute
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Data ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) held that the EU law only requires valid “right to be forgotten” de-referencing requests to be carried out by a search engine operator on search engine versions accessible in EU member states, as opposed to all versions of its search engine worldwide. While the ruling has been perceived as a “win” for Google and other interveners, such as Microsoft and the Wikimedia Foundation, who argued against worldwide de-referencing, the Court also made clear that that while the EU law does not currently require worldwide de-referencing, “it also does not prohibit such a practice” (para. 72). As a result, the CJEU found that an order by a national supervisory or judicial authority of an EU member state requiring worldwide de-referencing in accordance with its own national data protection laws would not be inconsistent with EU law where the data subject's right to privacy is adequately balanced against the right to freedom of information. By leaving the door to extraterritorial de-referencing wide open, the CJEU continues to pursue its post-Snowden hard-line stance on data privacy in a manner that is likely to transform the data privacy landscape.

Taricco principles beyond Taricco

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuffrida
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Alleged Incompatibility ◽  
The Eu

This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (‘ Taricco II’) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document