Suchergebnisse

'European Migration Law' explores the growth of EU migration law in both legislative and judicial developments. It analyses the general framework behind the EU rules of migration, the significance of human rights in policy making, and explores the legislation surrounding key issues including entry into EU territory, border controls, and asylum.

Introduction : the judicial deconstruction of Union citizenship / Daniel Thym -- Extending citizenship rights and losing it all : brexit and the perils of "over-constitutionalisation" / Susanne K Schmidt -- The citizenship of personal circumstances in Europe / Dimitry Kochenov -- (De)Constructing the road to brexit : paving the way to further limitations on free movement and equal treatment? / Stephanie Reynolds -- Why did the citizenship jurisprudence change? / Urška Šadl and Suvi Sankari -- The evolution of citizens : rights in light of the European Union's constitutional development / Daniel Thym -- The engine of "europeanness" : free movement, social transnationalism and European identification / Ettore Recchi -- European citizenship and transnational rights : chronicles of a troubled narrative / Francesca Strumia -- Consolidating union citizenship : residence and solidarity rights for jobseekers and the economically inactive in the post-Dano era / Ferdinand Wollenschläger -- Back to the roots : no access to social assistance for Union citizens who are economically inactive / Paul Minderhoud and Sandra Mantu -- Integrating Union citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights / Niamh Nic Shuibhne -- The constitutional status of foreigners and European Union citizens : loopholes and interactions in the scope of application of fundamental rights / Sara Iglesias Sánchez -- The integration exception : a new limit to social rights of third-country nationals in European Union law? / Karin De Vries -- Membership without naturalisation? : the limits of European Court of Human Rights case law on residence security and equal treatment / Clíodhna Murphy -- Conclusion : the non-simultaneous evolution of citizens' rights / Dora Kostakopoulou and Daniel Thym

Abstract
Two controversial rulings of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) deserve global attention, since they declined to scrutinize on human rights grounds the prevalent move towards enhanced border controls and externalization practices that define European asylum law and policy at this juncture. In ND and NT, judges deemed the Spanish policy of 'hot returns', without access to basic procedural guarantees, of those climbing border fences to be compatible with human rights. A few weeks later, the Grand Chamber thwarted enduring hopes for judicial innovation in MN when it reasserted a 'primarily territorial' understanding of State jurisdiction and declared inadmissible the claim of a Syrian family from the war-torn town of Aleppo to a humanitarian visa. While the decision on humanitarian visas means that 'non-arrival' policies cannot usually be challenged, critical inspection of the ND and NT judgment displays a confounding combination of restrictive arguments and dynamic elements beneath the surface of a seemingly clear-cut outcome. This lack of judicial precision, which was bound to cause heated debate about the practical implications of the judgment, reflects the basic tension between the prohibition of refoulement and the absence of a right to asylum in classic accounts of international refugee law. It will be argued that the judicial vindication of the Spanish 'hot returns' policy does not call into question non-refoulement obligations; it aims at identifying graded procedural standards for different categories of refugees and migrants. By contrast, the novel insistence on the abstract availability of legal channels of entry presents itself as a humanitarian fig leaf for the acceptance of strict control practices. At an intermediate level of abstraction, the two rulings mark a watershed moment, indicating the provisional endpoint of an impressive period of interpretative dynamism on the part of the ECtHR, which has played a critical role in the progressive evolution of international refugee and human rights law over the past three decades. Experts in asylum law who have become accustomed to supranational courts advancing the position of individuals will benefit from the insights of constitutional theory and the social sciences to rationalize why the former vigour has given way to a period of hesitation and potential standstill, at least in Europe. This analysis employs the perspective of strategic litigation to discuss contextual factors hindering the continued dynamism of human rights jurisprudence in Europe at this juncture.

Events during 2015 and early 2016 revealed structural deficiencies at the heart of the EU's asylum policy, which allow us to reconstruct the "refugee crisis" as a problem of integration through law. The analysis of systemic shortcomings highlights regulatory and political pitfalls which any attempt to overcome the crisis will have to confront. It will be shown that the EU institutions have to reform both legal rules and governance structures – a challenge the recent Commission proposals have started addressing. Yet the "refugee crisis" is about more than legal design and compliance: asylum policy shows that the EU must be careful not to get trapped in a vicious circle of output deficits and political contestation, which complicates the resolution of existing governance deficits.

The free movement of persons is central to the legal and political identity of the European project; it is the most important right attached to Union citizenship and defines the self-perception of those holding the status. Nevertheless, the precise legal standards for the delimitation of residence and equal treatment rights often remained elusive, in particular with regard to citizens with scarce resources. It will be demonstrated that Union law and corresponding Court judgments (most recently Brey and Dano) fluctuate between two visions of how to perceive EU citizenship and the limits of transnational solidarity: one conception based on territorial presence and another promoting social cohesion.

There is much confusion among EU experts about the legal status of third-country nationals. This is hardly surprising, since this uncertainty reflects conceptual tensions at the heart of the European project. Europe's mission of promoting transnational freedom for citizens of the Member States within the single market is not replicated for third-country nationals in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Instead of dismantling borders, EU activities re-confirm the relevance of borders towards third States - both physically through external border controls and legally under the emerging EU immigration and asylum acquis. This article identifies underlying motives and resolves the puzzle by proposing a positive constitutional rationale for the substantive rules of European migration policy. It takes seriously two major reforms brought about by the Lisbon Treaty: the emancipation of migration within the area of freedom, security and justice; and the binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both changes help us to understand that EU primary law represents a noteworthy accommodation of countervailing theoretical arguments about the normative foundations of international migration. EU migration law is committed to a "cosmopolitan outlook", which rejects the traditional notion of unfettered sovereign State control without mandating open borders.