On The Limits of Judicial Intervention:EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights

in European Journal of Migration and Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This article scrutinises the logic behind the recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ruiz Zambrano and McCarthy focusing on their implications for the right to family reunification under EU law. Specific attention is devoted to the phenomenon of reverse discrimination in the context of the new jurisdiction test established by the Court, which is based on the severity of the Member States’ interference with EU citizenship rights rather than on a pure cross-border logic. EU citizens unable to establish a link with EU law are often subject to stricter family reunification requirements in comparison to their migrant compatriots and even certain third country nationals. It is argued that this situation is difficult to accept in light of the principles of legal certainty, equality and the protection of fundamental rights. A new balance between EU citizenship and Member States’ regulatory autonomy is established but legislative action is required to solve the outstanding problems.

On The Limits of Judicial Intervention:EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights

in European Journal of Migration and Law

Sections

References

2)

Joint cases C-64/96 and C-65/96Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein Westfalen [1997] ECR I-3171 para. 23.

5)

Case C-34/09Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi [2011] ECR I-0000.

7)

Case C-434/09Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] ECR I-0000 paras. 40–41.

21)

Case C-212/96Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v. Flemish Government [2008] ECR I-1683; Van Elsuwege & Adam supra note 16 p. 327.

45)

Kochenov (2011 CJEL)supra note 6.

46)

Spaventasupra note 42 p. 14; Nic Shuibhne 2002. ‘The European Union and Fundamental Rights: Well in Spirit but Considerably Rumpled in Body?’ in: Paul Beaumont C. Lyons and N. Walker (Eds.) Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law Hart Oxford p. 188; Kochenov supra note 20 p. 34.

47)

Tryfonidou A. 2009. ‘In Search of the Aim of the EC Free Movement of Persons Provisions: Has the Court of Justice Missed the Point?’. CMLRev. 46(5) pp. 1591–1620; Kochenov supra note 20 pp. 47–52.

54)

Kochenovsupra note 6.

58)

Hailbronner & Thymsupra note 50 p. 1253; Nic Shuibhne Niamh ‘Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs’ 2011 ELRev. 36(2) pp. 161–163.

60)

Van Elsuwege P. ‘European Union Citizenship and the Purely Internal Rule Revisited’ 2011 EUConst. 7(2) p. 314.

61)

Kochenovsupra note 6.

62)

Thym & Hailbronnersupra note 50 p. 1255; Van Elsuwege (2011); Kochenov ibid.

63)

Spaventasupra note 42 (and the literature cited therein).

67)

Kochenovsupra note 6.

69)

Kochenovsupra note 6.

72)

ECtHRGül v. Switzerland Application 23218/94 para. 32.

75)

Hanfsupra note 3 p. 29.

76)

Tryfonidousupra note 47 p. 34.

92)

Aliens Chamber Amsterdam 16 November 2005Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenrecht 2006 28; Aliens Chamber District Court Haarlem 21 December 2005 AWB 05/299 LJN: AU8416.

97)

Council Document 13467/09 p. 10.

100)

Groenendijk & Fernhoutsupra note 96 p. 13.

105)

Kochenov D.Rounding up the Circle: The Mutation of Member States’ Nationalities under Pressure from EU CitizenshipEUI RSCAS Paper 2010 pp. 20–22.

116)

Application No. 265/07Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway 31 July 2008 para. 57; Application No. 50435/99 Rodrigues da Silva/Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands 31 January 2006 para 39; Application No. 27663/95 Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom 22 June 1999; Application No. 44328/98 Solomon v. the Netherlands 5 September 2000.

117)

Application No. 265/07Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway 31 July 2008 para. 59.

119)

Hailbronner & Thymsupra note 50 p. 1261.

120)

Application No. 50435/99Rodrigues da Silva/Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands 31 January 2006.

122)

Application No. 55597/09Nunez v. Norway 28 June 2011.

129)

Application No 23218/94Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996 para. 38; Application No. 50435/99 Rodrigues da Silva/Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands 31 January 2006 para. 39; Application No. 55597/09 Nunez v. Norway 28 June 2011 para. 66.

130)

E.g. Application No 21702/93Ahmut v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 November 1996 para. 71; Application 53102/99 Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands decision of 13 May 2003; Application No. 265/07 Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway 31 July 2008 para. 66.

135)

See on this point Van Elsuwegesupra note 60 p. 322.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 40 40 5
Full Text Views 12 12 12
PDF Downloads 3 3 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0