EU Citizenship, Access to “Social Benefits” and Third-Country National Family Members: Reflecting on the Relationship between Primary and Secondary Rights in Times of Brexit
{"title":"EU Citizenship, Access to “Social Benefits” and Third-Country National Family Members: Reflecting on the Relationship between Primary and Secondary Rights in Times of Brexit","authors":"E. Muir","doi":"10.15166/2499-8249/274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a series of recent cases on the rights of mobile EU citizens who do not perform an economic activity, the Court of Justice of the EU “deconstitutionalised” its understanding of key aspects of the free movement of EU citizens. The Court moved the discussion to the secondary law level, having kept it at the primary law level for many years. This line of cases sheds light on the ability of the Court to reframe the interplay between primary and secondary law as well as between the judicial and political guidance. The post-Brey case law provides a remarkable, if not unique, example of deconstitutionalisation following a period of intense constitutionalisation. The practical implications of this process are well illustrated in the context of the debate on Brexit that tests the relationship between treaty and legislative rights. This Article makes an enquiry into whether the trend towards a broader deference to political guidance in EU citizenship case law has been mirrored in other areas of citizens’ rights having been subject to controversy in the context of Brexit, such as the status of third-country national family members.","PeriodicalId":354310,"journal":{"name":"European Citizenship under Stress","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Citizenship under Stress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a series of recent cases on the rights of mobile EU citizens who do not perform an economic activity, the Court of Justice of the EU “deconstitutionalised” its understanding of key aspects of the free movement of EU citizens. The Court moved the discussion to the secondary law level, having kept it at the primary law level for many years. This line of cases sheds light on the ability of the Court to reframe the interplay between primary and secondary law as well as between the judicial and political guidance. The post-Brey case law provides a remarkable, if not unique, example of deconstitutionalisation following a period of intense constitutionalisation. The practical implications of this process are well illustrated in the context of the debate on Brexit that tests the relationship between treaty and legislative rights. This Article makes an enquiry into whether the trend towards a broader deference to political guidance in EU citizenship case law has been mirrored in other areas of citizens’ rights having been subject to controversy in the context of Brexit, such as the status of third-country national family members.
在最近一系列关于不从事经济活动的流动欧盟公民权利的案件中,欧盟法院(Court of Justice of EU)对欧盟公民自由流动关键方面的理解“违宪化”了。法院将该问题的讨论移至二级法层面,而多年来一直将其保持在初级法层面。这一系列案件表明,法院有能力重新界定初级法和次级法之间以及司法指导和政治指导之间的相互作用。在经历了一段激烈的宪法化之后,后布雷判例法提供了一个非凡的(如果不是独一无二的)反宪法化的例子。这一过程的实际影响在英国脱欧辩论的背景下得到了很好的说明,这场辩论考验着条约与立法权利之间的关系。本文探讨了欧盟公民判例法中更广泛地尊重政治指导的趋势是否反映在英国脱欧背景下受到争议的公民权利的其他领域,例如第三国国民家庭成员的地位。