Integration policy instruments disclose how European societies define themselves in response to migration. Pre-departure civic integration tests are emblematic of a new focus on social cohesion and have been a bone of contention in political and academic circles. That is why the ecj’s long-awaited verdicts on Dutch integration requirements for spouses and long-term residents are a milestone in the construction of an EU immigration policy. This contribution critically analyses the rationale and implications of the P & S and K & A rulings at different levels starting with doctrinal ambiguities on the part of judges when interpreting secondary legislation. On this basis, it relates the outcome of both cases to the broader constitutional context in terms of human rights, the doctrine of individual statutory rights and non-discrimination guarantees – together with a contextual outlook on factors influencing the reorientation of integration policies.
J.-C. Bonichot (2013) ‘Le style des arrȇts de la Cour de Justice de l’Unioneuropéenne’ Justice& Cassation p. 253 (own translation of: ‘assez longs rédigés sur un mode discursif’); besides the French judge the ecj’s second chamber comprises president Silva de Lapuerta from Spain judge Arabadjiev from Bulgaria judge Da Cruz Vilaça from Portugal and judge Lycourgos from Cyprus.
See K. Hailbronner and D. Thym (2016) ‘Constitutional Framework’ in: Hailbronner and Thym (note 32) margin nos 10–20; and generally R. van Gestel and H.-W. Micklitz ‘Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship’ 20 European Law Journal (2014) 292–316.
See F.C. Mayer (2009) ‘Multilevel Constitutional Jurisdiction’ in: A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast (eds) Principles of European Constitutional Law 2nd edn Oxford: Hart pp. 399 404–409.
See Thym (2016) (note 42) margin nos 5–6.
See also J. Bast (2011) Aufenthaltsrecht und Migrationssteuerung Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck pp. 101–111.
See Hailbronner and Thym (2016) (note 35) margin no. 15.
See ECtHR judgment of 27 November2011No. 56328/07 Bah v. the United Kingdom para. 47; Bribosia (note 75) pp. 55–61; and the comparative analysis by S. Saroléa (2006) Droits de l’hommeet migrations Brussels: Bruylant pp. 483–598.
Cf. S. Peers (2004) ‘Family Reunion and Community Law’ in: N. Walker (ed.) Europe’s Area of Freedom Security and Justice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 143–197 at pp. 145–149; and M.-B. Dembour ‘Still Silencing the Racism Suffered by Migrants . . .’ 11 European Journal of Migration and Law (2009) 221–234.
See by the of example Milios (2015) (note 46) pp. 132 138 who does not question or explain the assumptions upon which his critique of the ecj rests.
See S. Benhabib (2004) The Rights of Others: Aliens Residents and Citizens Cambridge: Cambridge University Press chapter 5; and F.I. Michelman ‘Law’s Republic’ 97 Yale Law Journal (1988) 1493–1537.
See Carrera (2009) (note 1) pp. 440–448; Acosta (2011) (note 50) pp. 189–195; D. Acosta and J. Martire ‘Trapped in the Lobby: Europe’s Revolving Doors and the Other as Xenos’ 39 European Law Review (2014) 362–379 at 363–366.
See C. Joppke (2010) Citizenship and Immigration Cambridge: Polity Press chapter 4; and D. Thym ‘Citizens and Foreigners in eu Law’ 22 European Law Journal (2016) Section 4.3 (forthcoming).