The Court Helps Those Who Help Themselves … The Legal Status of Migrant Work-Seekers under Community Law in the Light of the Collins Judgment

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-34
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Migrant Work ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

This article considers the rights to free movement and equal treatment enjoyed by migrant work-seekers, in their capacity as Union citizens, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Collins. The Court's approach now focuses upon the right of such lawfully resident Community nationals to challenge discriminatory restrictions on subsistence benefits under Article 39 EC as reinterpreted in light of Article 12 EC; and the potential for the Member States nevertheless to justify such restrictions by reference to their legitimate desire to ensure a ‘real link’ between economically inactive migrants and the domestic welfare systems. The article further addresses the impact of the Collins ruling upon legislative choices made by the Community's political institutions about the mutual allocation between Member States of financial responsibilities for economically inactive persons (including migrant work-seekers), in particular, as contained in Directive 2004/38 on free movement for Union citizens and their family members, and Regulations 1408/71 and 883/2004 on the co-ordination of national social security systems.

scholarly journals FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ON THE EXAMPLE OF POLAND, IRELAND AND FRANCE

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-37
Author(s):  
Karolina BICZ
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The article presents the issue of the free movement of persons in the European Union in the field of same-sex marriage rights, taking into account comparative elements. The research presents provisions of the European Union, as well as internal regulations in force in France, Ireland and Poland. The article discusses the approach to the analysed issue at the level of EU regulations and internal regulations of the examined Member States. Moreover, the interaction between EU and national regulations is an important research point. Besides the article shows case variants concerning the recognition of same-sex relationships due to the legal and ideological conditions in the analysed countries Also, the article analyses the impact and importance of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights for the studied topic. In addition, the study takes into consideration the impact of constitutional provisions on the legalization of homosexual couples in the analysed countries. The article is divided into parts covering the following issues: free movement of persons in the European Union, the right to family reunification of European Union citizens, relations between European Union law and the internal law of the Member States, recognition of same-sex marriages in France, Ireland and Poland, and summary. The opinions of A. Tryfonidou, H. Verschueren, P. Tulea and M. Bell were included in the study due to their importance to the research are.

scholarly journals The Right of Free Movement and the Access To Social Protection in the EU: The Economical Dimension. Notes on the Case Elisabeta Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, C-333/13

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 110-120
Author(s):  
Daniela Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Assistance Systems ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This article seeks to analyse the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in the Dano judgement concerning the free movement of EU citizens and their cross-border access to social benefits. The debate about social tourism or welfare migration has been acrimonious in the last years. The Member States face new challenges concerning the possibility of excluding economically inactive European Union (EU) citizens from other Member States from special non-contributory social benefits. However, if on one hand we have the need to protect the financial sustainability of the Member States, as non-active EU citizens from other Member States can represent a burden on their social assistance systems, on the other hand, we also need to respect one of the EU’s most basilar principles: the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. The CJEU has decided that the economically nonactive citizens of other Member States can only claim equal treatment in regard to access to social benefits, when they have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Labour Rights as Human Rights: Implications for Employers’ Free Movement in an Enlarged European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 357-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal status of labour rights as human rights within the European Union (EU) and the implications that this may have for free movement provisions under European Community (EC) law. This is not by any means a new subject for analysis and reflection, but has been of particular concern since the fifth enlargement of the EU which commenced in 2004. It is in this context that we have witnessed significant litigation before the European Court of Justice concerning the scope of the right to strike, and widespread protest concerning the adoption of a new Directive on Services in the Internal Market.

The Process of Granting Exclusive Rights in the Light of Treaty Rules on Free Movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1408-1445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Szydło
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Sufficient Degree ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

After theSporting ExchangeandErnst Engelmannrulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2010, it is now entirely clear that the process of granting exclusive rights to undertakings must be conducted in compliance with the Treaty rules on free movement, particularly in accordance with the consequent principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency, irrespective of whether the right is awarded by means of a public contract or by other legal means (public or private). Thus, even if public authorities wish to exclude competition in a given market due to justified reasons, and are authorized by EU law to do so, they must nonetheless ensure a sufficient degree of competition for that market so as to ensure an undistorted rivalry of the various market operators at the stage of application for that right. It is submitted that the public authorities granting exclusive rights should not complain about the requirements that are imposed upon them by the TFEU rules. After all, by granting exclusive rights within competitive and transparent procedures, the public authorities have an excellent chance to select, from among the many potentially interested operators— including those from other Member States— beneficiaries that will best serve the needs of the relevant community. In turn, if they want to depart from those requirements, they must substantiate the existence of a clearly defined public interest that is capable of outweighing the benefits resulting from a competitive and transparent procedure.

L'azione dell'Unione europea contro le discriminazioni basate sulla religione: l'impatto della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani

2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.

O’Keeffe v. Ireland: overview and analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Gallen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
European Court ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

James Gallen’s chapter reviews the case and the contributions of Adrian Hardiman and Conor O’Mahony to this book. Gallen argues that their discussion reveals the tension between the principle of subsidiarity and the right to effective protection and an effective remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights. The chapter argues that the case of O’Keeffe v Ireland also raises concerns about the European Court of Human Right methodology for the historical application of the Convention and about the interaction of Article 3 positive obligations with vicarious liability in tort. A further section examines the impact of the decision for victims of child sexual abuse and identifies that the decision provides the potential for an alternative remedy to the challenging use of vicarious liability in Irish tort law.

International Law and its Impact on The Hijaz

The Hijaz ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 155-204
Author(s):  
Malik R. Dahlan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Holy See ◽  
The Status ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Chapter 6 is an international legal examination of the status of The Hijaz in the aftermath of its conquest and absorption into a Saudi personal union. It discusses the impact of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States as well as the Territorial Principle. The Chapter tackles the legal question of secession and warns against the pitfalls of the ‘Self-Determination Trap’. It draws lessons from the difference between involuntary extinction of states as opposed to their creation. By looking at the cases of Czechoslovakia and Quebec it tackles the issue of ‘the Right to Secession by Agreement’. The Chapter reflects on lessons from Scotland, Catalan and Kurdistan highlighting that The Hijaz presents us with a delicate and nuanced understanding of ‘Internal Self-Determination’ and ‘Autonomy’ establishing, de facto, an international legal status of “Self-Determination Spectrum Disorder”. A special status calls for an active and special legal solution. The notion of a broader integrative role for The Hijaz and the broader Islamic world. The potential integrative institutionalization of The Hijaz is investigated bringing to bare a unique approach to self-determination that would entail coupling autonomy with international territorial administration. The propositions under this Chapter are supported by looking at other sui generis entities such as the Holy See being sovereigns without being states.

Right of Exit and Entry

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Member States ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the right of exit and entry provided for in the citizens’ Directive. Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2004/38 affirm the right of Union citizens and members of their family to leave their Member State of origin and to enter any other Member State of their choosing. As such, these Articles constitute a ‘gateway’ for the exercise of rights of residence and rights of permanent residence provided for in the Directive. In addition to affirming the right of free movement, Articles 4 and 5 specify the administrative documentation and procedures governing travel between Member States. However, there have been significant failures to transpose these provisions correctly, with some Member States imposing exit controls on their own citizens, while some Member States blatantly ignore the clear legal requirements of the Directive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document