欧盟公民身份、获得“社会福利”与第三国国民家庭成员:对英国脱欧时期主要权利与次要权利关系的反思

E. Muir
{"title":"欧盟公民身份、获得“社会福利”与第三国国民家庭成员:对英国脱欧时期主要权利与次要权利关系的反思","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信