{"title":"英国移民法受到攻击,欧洲法院直接适用《欧洲人权公约》第8条","authors":"Xavier Groussot","doi":"10.1163/157180703322765058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Immigration law might be wrongly perceived as a field where the so-called doctrine of purely internal matters applies with virulence. Between 2002 and 2003, UK immigration law has been the object of three preliminary rulings referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has already delivered two judgments, i.e. Carpenter (July 2002) and Baumbast (September 2002). Similarly, the Opinion of the Advocate General (AG) in Akrich (February 2003) concerns an identical issue and thus appears of interest.","PeriodicalId":399071,"journal":{"name":"Non-state Actors and International Law","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UK immigration law under attack and the direct application of article 8 ECHR by the ECJ\",\"authors\":\"Xavier Groussot\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/157180703322765058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Immigration law might be wrongly perceived as a field where the so-called doctrine of purely internal matters applies with virulence. Between 2002 and 2003, UK immigration law has been the object of three preliminary rulings referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has already delivered two judgments, i.e. Carpenter (July 2002) and Baumbast (September 2002). Similarly, the Opinion of the Advocate General (AG) in Akrich (February 2003) concerns an identical issue and thus appears of interest.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Non-state Actors and International Law\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Non-state Actors and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/157180703322765058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Non-state Actors and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/157180703322765058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
UK immigration law under attack and the direct application of article 8 ECHR by the ECJ
Immigration law might be wrongly perceived as a field where the so-called doctrine of purely internal matters applies with virulence. Between 2002 and 2003, UK immigration law has been the object of three preliminary rulings referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has already delivered two judgments, i.e. Carpenter (July 2002) and Baumbast (September 2002). Similarly, the Opinion of the Advocate General (AG) in Akrich (February 2003) concerns an identical issue and thus appears of interest.