scholarly journals Free movement of people and cross-border welfare in the European Union: Dynamic rules, limited outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen ◽  
Gabriel Pons Rotger ◽  
Jessica Sampson Thierry

For decades, the European legislators and the Court of Justice have extended the rights to free movement and cross-border welfare in the European Union (EU). Strong assumptions on the impact of these rules have been made. It has been held by some that they will lead to welfare migration and thus to be a fundamental challenge to the welfare state. However, studies of how these rules are implemented and what become the de facto outcomes hereof remain scarce. We address this research gap, by examining domestic responses to and outcomes of dynamic EU rules. We based our research on a unique set of administrative data for all EU citizens living in the universalist, tax-financed welfare state of Denmark between 2002 and 2013. We find that domestic responses have been restrictive and outcomes limited.

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 76-89
Author(s):  
Mădălina Cocoșatu ◽  
◽  
Claudia Elena Marinică ◽  

The increase of international and European Union migration has led to increasing attention to the impact of Member States' legislation on the recognition, legal certainty and standardization of procedures for the movement of official documents, as part of the free movement of persons within the European Union. This article responds to European Union's needs by examining the extent to which the various regulations, in particular regulations having direct and immediate application, being long and complex and comprehensively governing some cross-border procedures that underline the recognition of official documents within the European Union. It is a fact that the Union facilitates and accelerates the cross-border application of aspects of the free movement of persons in private international law, encourages the simplification of the requirements for the presentation of certain official documents in EU, while strengthening the security of Union citizens' identity cards and residence documents etc. By using the historical and comparative method, the conclusions drawn from this analysis refer to the need to apply these legislative rules established due to the necessity to ensure legal certainty and predictability at Union level, but also offering to European citizens an attractive option compared to the classic variants of international law, the latter providing at times a more convincing and comprehensive legal certainty.


2019 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
ROMAN PETROV

У статті досліджено вплив Суду Європейського Союзу (ЄС) на впровадження і застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС, що викликало безпрецедентні політичні, економічні та правові реформи в Україні. Зокрема, розглядаються конституційні виклики, які постали перед державою під час виконання Угоди в правовій системі. Крім того, досліджено два питання. Перше – ефективне впровадження та застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС в українській правовій системі. Друге – сумісність і відповідність Угоди Конституції України. Проаналізовано останні політичні та правові події в Україні через призму ефективної реалізації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і зростання проєвропейського правового активізму в державі. На закінчення стверджується, що Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС посилює пристосованість національного конституційного устрою до цілей досягнення європейської інтеграції та застосування європейських спільних цінностей в Україні. Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС створила стійку інституційну та правову основу для застосування acquis ЄС (правового доробку ЄС), включаючи прецедентне право ЄС та комплексне законодавче наближення між законодавством України та ЄС. Однак інституційні реформи, які вже відбулися, не можна вважати цілком достатніми. Верховній Раді України не вдалося запровадити основні та процедурні засади для застосування та впровадження Угоди в правовий порядок України. Однак ця прогалина частково заповнюється зростаючим судовим активізмом в Україні. Вітчизняні судді вже почали посилатися на Угоду про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і відповідні частини acquis ЄС у своїх рішеннях, тим самим закладаючи основу для регулярного застосування загальних принципів права ЄС у процесі виконання й імплементації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.


Author(s):  
Arie Reich ◽  
Hans-W. Micklitz

The concluding chapter sums up the overall findings of the project through three different strands of analysis: the first breaks down the eleven jurisdictions into three groups based on the relative quantity and impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) citations found in these jurisdictions. By drawing conclusions from all the country reports through a comparative and macro-perspective, the goal is to distil the insights of the entire project and formulate policy recommendations in the light of EU external policy and legal integration objectives vis-à-vis its neighbourhood; the second examines the many factors that a priori could have an impact on whether judges are likely to cite the CJEU in their judgments, and then discusses what the research has found in relation to the actual role played by these factors; the third tries to place the current project into the context of overall research on the global reach of EU law, which can be ‘exported’ to non-members of the EU through various mechanisms, such as mutual and formal agreement or through more unilateral and spontaneous forms. They include modes of extraterritorial application of EU law, territorial extension, and the so-called ‘Brussels Effect’. The chapter concludes with some general observations and thoughts and formulates possible policy recommendations.


Author(s):  
Paul Kalinichenko

This chapter presents the findings of the author on the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the Russian legal system. To start with, this chapter includes a brief description of the background to the modern Russian legal system and, in particular, the structure of the Russian judiciary. The contribution goes on to describe the Russian model for approximating its legal order with EU rules and standards, as well as adding some remarks on the application of EU law by the Russian courts. Then follows an explanation of the specifics of the database used, together with a description and analysis of citation of CJEU decisions by Russian courts in the period 2006–18. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the final section of the chapter.


Author(s):  
Ulaş Karan

This chapter explores whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) produces any impact on the Turkish legal system and, if so, its possible underlying causes. Protection of intellectual, industrial, and commercial property rights, competition, trade defence instruments, government procurement, direct and indirect taxation have been regarded as the main areas of ‘approximation of legislation’. Accordingly, laws adopted mostly in the past three decades show that the influence of EU law is valid only in certain fields of law, such as intellectual property law, labour law, and competition law, and this is also where we find most CJEU citations. This influence forms part of the EU accession process, which requires Turkey to harmonize its laws with the acquis. According to the research, despite the existence of a long-standing accession process and legislation based on the acquis in certain fields of law, on the whole, the Turkish judiciary does not seem committed to follow EU law in general or CJEU jurisprudence in particular.


2020 ◽  
pp. 507-528
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers

This chapter examines the social rights that arise as part of free-movement rights under Articles 21, 45, 49 and 59 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It highlights the extensive interpretation given by the Court of Justice (CJ) to these rights ensuring equality of treatment for those migrants who are economically active. As well as dealing with the provisions in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (CRD) (Directive 2004/38) and Regulation 492/2011 on the free movement of workers, the chapter deals briefly with the provisions relating to social security and EU citizenship.


2020 ◽  
pp. 205-239
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Connor

This Paper considers the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in relation to the free movement provisions of European Community law in relation to goods, persons, services and capital within the European Union. It examines the bases used by the Court in its application of Community free movement provisions to national measures that may seek to hinder the exercise of such rights. From limited enquiry originally founded on considerations of non discrimination based on nationality, to one most recently focussed on the ‘restriction’ to the free movement right, the Paper examines the methods employed by the Court of Justice in its scrutiny of the national measure appearing to conflict with Treaty free movement rights.The examination of the applicable free movement jurisprudence attempts to demonstrate the want of a thematically consistent underpinning within free movement case law. The Paper draws attention to the complexities and even the confusions that appear to be inherent within free movement jurisprudence and arguably evidenced within the Court's journey from ‘discrimination’ to ‘restriction’ as the basis of the enquiry with regard to the application of Treaty free movement rights. In its consideration of Case C-110/05Commission v Italy, Case C-142/05Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson v. Joakim Roos, recent jurisprudence with respect to the free movement of goods, the Paper notes that in the context of the ‘measure having equivalent effect’, the emphasis in the assessment of the national rule has shifted to an examination of the effect on market access, rather than a distinction based on the type of rule.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1099-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Szabados

AbstractIn several golden share cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court”) condemned Member States for reserving certain special rights in privatized companies for themselves. In spite of the Court's consistently strict approach in the golden share cases, the more recent golden share judgments demonstrate that the Court's practice is not free from uncertainties. In its case law, the Court seems to hesitate between the application of the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital. Additionally, it is not entirely clear which measures are caught by provisions on the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document