scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the court of justice of the European Union (April−September 2017)

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-362
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This contribution presents an overview of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the period April–September 2017 on social security matters. The relevant rulings concern first and foremost the rules determining the applicable legislation as enshrined in Regulation 883/2004 and Regulation 1408/71. In addition, the Court of Justice has delivered important rulings concerning posted worker and the binding effect of A1 certificates, the social security rights of third country nationals holding a single-permit and the protection of social rights in the context of financial crisis and austerity measures.

21. Free movement: social rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 507-528
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers

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.

23. Free movement: social rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social

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 migrants. As well as dealing with the provisions in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (CRD) (Directive 2004/38), it deals briefly with the provisions relating to social security.

scholarly journals Tracing the Boundaries between Disability and Sickness in the European Union: Squaring the Circle?

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-35
Author(s):  
Silvia Favalli ◽  
Delia Ferri
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Model ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Social Model Of Disability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Employment Equality

In recent years the European Union (eu) has sought to develop a far-reaching policy regarding persons with disabilities. However, to date, eu non-discrimination legislation does not provide any clear legal definition of what constitutes a disability. The Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) has attempted to fill this gap and, in several decisions, has elaborated on the concept of disability and its meaning under eu law. The cjeu, with reference to the application of the Employment Equality Directive, has explained the notion of disability mainly by comparing and contrasting it to the concept of sickness. Against this background, this article critically discusses recent case law and attempts to highlight that, even though the Court has firmly embraced the social model of disability envisaged by the un Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the boundaries between the concepts of sickness and disability remain blurred.

The Concept of ‘Worker’ in the Free Movement of Workers and the Social Policy Directives: Perspectives from the Case Law of the Court of Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252094533
Author(s):  
Vincent Février
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers

The Concept of worker is the gateway to the access to the protection of labour and social security law. The Court of Justice of the European Union first defined this concept in the field of the Free Movement of Workers in the Lawrie-Blum case. The scope of this article is to compare the definitions used by the Court in the fields of the free movement of workers and in the Social Policy Directives, in order to ascertain to which extent they can differ. Our in-depth analysis of the case law offers a nuanced picture. On one hand, it highlights that the Court tries to extend the application of the Lawrie-Blum formula to Directives which do not refer back to the national definitions of a worker, but that specificities remain in this area, like the emphasis on the link of subordination. On the other hand, for Directives referring to a national concept of workers, the Court began recently to state that, even if the competence of the Member States on this question must be acknowledged, it is not limitless.

scholarly journals Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej wobec zjawiska „turystyki socjalnej”

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 27-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksander Cieśliński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Court Of Justice

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND “SOCIAL TOURISM”The idea of social citizenship in the European Union as a brand new stage of the integration process following well established market citizenship used to be very popular and tempting, especially for Euro-enthusiasts. Taking into account at the same time how important social rights turn out to be for modern state and citizenship it should not be a surprise that such development would be a solid basis for the concept of the more advanced and human-oriented Union. For the decades since the Maastricht Treaty the evolution of the case-law of the Court of Justice has seemed to prove that direction. Unfortunately, due to the worldwide crisis as well as new EU accessions covering rather less developed countries, political climate has changed in recent years and particularly EU migrating citizens’ claims for social benefits are rather considered a threat and part of so called “social tourism” that needs to be explained. As it turned out the CJEU case-law has also been modified and here the most famous example is the Dano case.The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the most important changes brought by this ruling and subsequent ones until the present day and their wider implications. What is particularly interesting is the restoration of practical meaning of the limitations and conditions for legal residence and social assistance stemming from Directive 2004/38 that seemed to be almost omitted in previous case-law in the name of respecting the general citizenship guarantees and non-discrimination principle. There should also be no doubt that  his principle shall not be treated as unlimited for all EU citizens who find themselves in the same situation, as Member States are again entitled to differentiate them more rigorously basing on such criteria as the level of integration with its society and the market. Another important aspect that has been modified refers to a less individual approach to every claimant for social benefits which was criticized due to serious administrative burden for national authorities and the way it became rationalized also seems to be quite interesting.

scholarly journals Los derechos sociales en la Constitución y el juez de Luxemburgo

2017 ◽  
pp. 145-169
Author(s):  
Marc CARRILLO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Multilevel System ◽  
Social Field ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
El Sistema

LABURPENA: Eskubide sozialak Konstituzioan aitortzeak arazo bat mahairatzen du: haien eraginkortasun juridikoa. Gehienetan, konstituzio-printzipio orokor batzuetatik abiatuta edukia zehaztera datorren legearen arabera egongo dira bermaturik. Europan dugun sisteman, eskubideak maila anitzetan egonik bermaturik, Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiak zeresan handia du. Bada, epaiketa aurreko auzirako prozedura bitarteko, estatuko epaileak eta Batasunekoak badute mintzabide bat konstituzio-epailea bazter batean uzten duena eskubide sozial batzuen babesean. RESUMEN: El reconocimiento constitucional de los derechos sociales plantea el problema de su eficacia jurídica. En la mayoría de los casos, su garantía depende de la ley que concreta su contenido a partir de unos genéricos principios constitucionales. En el sistema europeo de garantía multinivel de los derechos, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea desarrolla un importante papel. A este respecto, el procedimiento de la cuestión prejudicial permite un diálogo entre el juez nacional y el juez de la Unión que desplaza al juez constitucional en la protección de algunos derechos del ámbito social. ABSTRACT: The constitutional recognition of social rights raises the problem of their legal effectiveness. In most cases, their guarantee depends on the law that specifies their content based on generic constitutional principles. In the European multilevel system of rights protection, the Court of Justice of the European Union plays an important role. In this regard, the preliminary reference procedure allows a dialogue between the national judge and the judge of the Union that displaces the constitutional judge in the protection of some rights in the social field.

Revisiting Proportionality in Internal Market Law: Looking at the Unnamed Actors in the cjeu’s Reasoning

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 286-302
Author(s):  
Ségolène Barbou des Places
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Abstract Reasoning ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Restrictive Measure ◽  
Social Narrative ◽  
Alternative Reading

Abstract To understand how the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) assesses the proportionality of restrictive national measures, one has to depart from the canonical reading of internal market law cases. An alternative reading of the cjeu case law, focusing on the “who” rather than on the “how”, is possible. This article argues that the control of proportionality should not be viewed as an abstract reasoning aiming at comparing the respective importance and value of the norms in conflict, but rather as an evaluation based upon the thorough description of the social reality of the persons whose life and interests are either affected or protected by the challenged restrictive measure. Because it analyses the control of proportionality as a social narrative elaborated by the judge, the article can demonstrate that among the roles conferred by the proportionality narrative to different characters, the most determinant ones are played by persons standing behind the scene: the “archetypal characters”.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document