Suchergebnisse

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its "post-1992" strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

The European Court's efforts to locate the outer limits of Article 30's control of national measures have been discussed before in these surveys of current developments in EC law.1 The Court was tempted to use Article 30 to catch a wide range of measures that affected trade even where the rules applied in an even-handed manner to all traders. The most notable example of this expansionist trend was found in the so-called Sunday trading cases, in which Article 30 was exploited to challenge rules restricting commercial activity in England and Wales even though the rules did not put cross-border strategies at any particular disadvantage. The Court pursued an erratic course before finally ruling the laws compatible with Article 30.2 Academic comment, though nuanced in its detailed appreciation of the Court's stance, was largely convinced that Article 30 had been extended beyond both its intent and necessary function in the process of market integration.3

AbstractCommunitarians are derided for their commitment to closed borders. According to their critics, if we balance the claims of cultural preservation (deployed primarily by wealthy countries) against the claims of economic betterment (deployed primarily by the very poor), the correct moral ordering will prioritize the claims of economic betterment, and thus support claims for open borders over closed borders. Yet, this standard way of framing the debate ignores the deep connection between cultural claims and freedom of movement. In the near-exclusive focus on the relationship between cultural preservation and the alleged importance of closed borders, free movement advocates have lost sight of how frequently culture bolsters claims in favor of freedom of movement. I argue that cultural claims should not be ignored in discussions of free movement. To do so fails to give a full account of the reasons we have to favor free movement, oftentimes across borders.

Fundamental issues sometimes hide themselves behind what to an untrained eye might look like a technical and somewhat dry debate. Thus, a layman hearing Community lawyers' talk about the legal basis of legislation might be excused for not realising that the issue may be that of the role of the European Parliament in the European Union, and therefore the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions. The debate about the function of the concept of discrimination in the law on the free movement of goods, services and persons in the Community is one of those discussions which has more to offer than meets the eye. What the debate is really about is the balance of powers between the member States and the Community and the federal nature of the Community legal order as well as, incidentally, the balance between market principles and other values embodied in legislation. Translated by specialists in the free movement of goods in the Community, it has become, in the context of Article 30 of the Treaty: should we read a "rule of reason" within Article 30, or can Cassis de Dijon be explained in terms of indirect discrimination?

Restricting the freedom of movement of unwanted asylum seekers is the conceptual core of the CEAS reform package politically agreed upon by the EU's legislative institutions in December 2023. Large groups of the people seeking international protection in the EU will be subject to so-called border procedures. Their claims will be processed while being 'kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones' (Commission proposal) in order to prevent their onward movement and to facilitate ensuing deportations. Introducing such confinement measures will be mandatory for all Member States, provided that an asylum seeker meets certain criteria, in particular a low rate of success of earlier protection claims made by his or her fellow nationals, calculated on an EU-wide average. Why did we fail to make asylum-seekers' right to free movement relevant in context of the CEAS reform?

The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. ; The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.

This article is concerned with the legal position of Community nationals who move to another Member State in search of employment. Section II will summarise the traditional legal status of the workseeker viewed as an economic factor of production. Section III will explore the new legal status of the workseeker viewed as a citizen of the European Union. Section IV will offer some brief comments on the Commission's 2001 proposal for an umbrella directive on free movement for Union citizens, and its implications for the migrant workseeker. It will be argued, through this analysis, that the institution of Union citizenship, so often criticised for its 'us and them' mentality in the treatment of third country nationals, is equally characterised by a 'haves and have-nots' approach to its own members—thus presenting a model which (albeit for perhaps understandable pragmatic reasons) is not necessarily in the best interests of maximising economic efficiency within the Common Market, places limits on certain of the political aspirations vested in the process of European integration, and questions the depth or at least the methodology of the Community's stated commitment to attaining high levels of social protection.