scholarly journals Exploring the Links between Residence and Social Rights for Economically Inactive EU Citizens

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Mantu ◽  
Paul Minderhoud
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Social Assistance ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Assistance Systems

Abstract This article examines the links between residence and social rights in the context of EU citizens’ mobility. It builds on national replies to a questionnaire concerning the implementation and application of Directive 2004/38 at the national level. Our focus is on how the EU28 are implementing the provisions on social assistance for economically inactive EU citizens, including five relevant European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments in this area (Brey, Dano, Alimanovic, Garcia-Nieto and Commission v UK) and the provisions on permanent residence status. Based on the national replies we argue that asking for social benefits becomes a first step towards being considered by the administration as an unreasonable burden, which leads to the termination of EU residence rights. Our analysis shows that asserting and maintaining residence rights under Articles 7 and 16 of Directive 2004/38 is becoming problematic for certain categories of EU citizens and linked with the more restrictive position taken by some Member States in relation to accessing their national social assistance systems.

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of its Exclusive Jurisdiction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Discussion

The article explores the limits of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

scholarly journals Who Are the “Masters of the Treaty”?: European Governments and the European Court of Justice

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Alter
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
State Control ◽  
Member States ◽  
General Hypothesis ◽  
Political Autonomy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
Supranational Level

To what extent can the European Court of Justice, an international court, make decisions that go against the interests of European Union member states? Neofunctionalist accounts imply that because the Court is a legal body it has vast political autonomy from the member states, whereas neorealist accounts imply that because member states can sanction the ECJ, the Court has no significant political autonomy. Neither theory can explain why the Court, which was once politically weak and did not stray far from the interests of European governments, now boldly rules against their interests. In explaining how the Court escaped member state control, this article develops a general hypothesis of the autonomy of the ECJ, focusing on how differing time horizons of political and judicial actors, support for the Court within the national judiciaries, and decision-making rules at the supranational level limit the member states' ability to control the Court.

scholarly journals Mutual trust

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Mechanism ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Rules Of The Game

Mutual trust is at the heart of the European Union. Although the Union lacks a general mechanism to enforce its rules and decisions, member states usually comply with them. This remarkable fact can in part be explained by self interest: although individual rules and decisions may be found harmful and are ducked from time to time, all member states know they win by sticking to the rules of the game. The member state that grudgingly applies a rule or a decision, trusts all the others to do the same most of the time. If this were not so, the system would break down, in spite of the European Court of Justice denying the rule of reciprocity legal status in the Union.

Transposition and Implementation of EIA Directive in some EU Member States (with special emphasis on transport infrastructure cases)

elni Review ◽  
2007 ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Pavel Černý ◽  
Jerzy Jendrośka
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Large Scope

One of the main goals of the Directive 85/337/EEC, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (“EIA Directive”), expressed in its Preamble, is to ensure that projects that are likely to have significant environmental impact proceed only after prior assessment of their likely effect on the environment, based on appropriate information supplied by the developer and with proper avenues for public participation. The European Court of Justice (ECD) repeatedly narrowed down the (originally large) scope of discretion of the member states in deciding whether a project shall be subject to EIA or not by requiring the environmental impact assessment for any project which is likely to have serious impacts de facto. Central to this article is a description of the typical and most important gaps of implementation of the EIA directive, emerging from the specific traffic infrastructure cases. Prior to that, some general remarks on the typical characteristics and problems concerning transposition of the EIA Directive are made.

scholarly journals The Nordea Bank Denmark Case (C-48/13)

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-242
Author(s):  
Anders Nørgaard Laursen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
European Court

Abstract This paper reports on an investigation of a recent decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-48/13, Nordea Bank Denmark, concerning the Danish rules for reincorporation of losses from permanent establishments situated in European Union/ European Economic Area (EU/EEA) member states other than Denmark. The article includes comments on various EU tax law aspects of the case - namely the restriction test applied by the ECJ, the justifications brought forward by the intervening governments and the question of proportionality - and examines the consequences of the Danish tax law going forward.

Mail-Order Trade in Medicines in Europe — A Guide for Legislators to Protect Consumers

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels-J. Seeberg-Elverfeldt
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mail Order ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Prescription Medicines

AbstractThis article discusses mail-order trade in medicines. It explains why this trade has developed and why there is a need for strict safety standards. The European Court of Justice obliged member states to allow such trade in non prescription medicines but did not specify any safety standards. The 2007 resolution of the Council of Europe lays these down precisely. An analysis of the legal situation in the 30 EU and EEA states shows that they increasingly permit this trade. However, there are considerable deficits as regards the necessary safety standards. To protect consumers from illegal medicine sales via the internet, they should be able to easily identify legal products online. Legislators should act accordingly.

scholarly journals The turbulent life of the Working Time Directive

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Working Time ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
Working Time Directive

The case of the Working Time Directive (WTD) is a prime example of a failed attempt by the Member States and the Commission to counter rulings of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) by legislative overrule. Outsourcing the decision making process to the social partners also did not deliver the desired results. After years of trying to reform the WTD, the Commission changed its strategy and issued an interpretive communication instead. However, it is doubtful that this communication will solve all that is wrong with the WTD. What were the obstacles to legislative overrule in this case? What other strategies in avoiding the consequences of CJEU rulings do the Member States apply? What will the future of WTD look like?

scholarly journals Case Report on C-411/10, N.S. and C-493/10, M.E. and Others, 21 December 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Court of Justice clarified through this judgment the way in which the overloading of a Member States’ asylum system affects the EU arrangements for determining the Member State responsible for asylum applications lodged in the EU and thereby drastically reduced the possibility granted to Member States to transfer asylum applicants. The Member States now have an obligation to verify that no serious risk of violation of the Charter rights of the applicant exits in the receiving country before being allowed to transfer the person. The practical consequences of this ruling are still uncertain but further cooperation between Member States should be able to enhance the level of protection of human rights within the Common European Asylum System.

The European Community, the European Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fishery Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe European Community has gradually increased its focus on marine and maritime affairs, starting with the Community's Fishery Policy in the 1970s and culminating recently in the 2007 Blue Book on an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. The Community's increased clout over marine and maritime matters has been reflected also in the case law of the European Court of Justice. From the outset the Court has given great impetus to the Community's efforts to assert its external competence in matters related to fisheries and conservation of biological resources of the sea. Even so, the Court has thus far only occasionally been confronted with public international law questions pertaining to the law of the sea. However, the few cases in which the Court has addressed such issues are worthy of note. For example, the Court has ruled on whether Member States should be allowed to rely on the international law of the sea in order to derogate from obligations under Community law; whether Member States should be allowed to prefer the dispute settlement provisions set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the Community's own dispute settlement system; and on whether private parties may invoke arguments derived from the customary or conventional international law of the sea to challenge the validity of Community legislation pertaining to marine and maritime matters. The resulting judgments of the European Court of Justice have often turned out to be landmark cases, although some of them have tended to divide academic opinion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document