欧盟在东道国获得社会援助的基本权利?欧盟对经济不活跃的联盟公民在达诺后自由流动的模棱两可的态度

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Ferdinand Wollenschläger
{"title":"欧盟在东道国获得社会援助的基本权利?欧盟对经济不活跃的联盟公民在达诺后自由流动的模棱两可的态度","authors":"Ferdinand Wollenschläger","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An EU Fundamental Right to Social Assistance in the Host Member State? The CJEU’s Ambivalent Approach to the Free Movement of Economically Inactive Union Citizens Post Dano\",\"authors\":\"Ferdinand Wollenschläger\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718166-12340122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340122\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340122","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不从事经济活动的欧盟公民的居住权,以及他们在其他欧盟成员国获得社会福利的权利,是一个复杂而政治敏感的问题,几十年来欧盟法律一直在争论这个问题。在一些最初充满活力的判例法之后,欧盟法院在2014年11月11日作出的达诺判决中采取了更为保守的做法。然而,其解释仍然存在争议,特别是考虑到具体事实、对欧盟次要法律的选择性讨论,以及与既定判例法和随后的判例法的关系不明确。因此,人们饶有兴趣地等待着第一次后续判决。这是2021年7月15日作出的CG案判决,并在这里进行了讨论;然而,事实证明这是矛盾的。一方面,欧盟法院继续对2004/38/EC自由流动指令进行限制性解读,而另一方面,欧洲法院首次启动了欧盟基本权利作为在东道国申请社会援助的基础,这与达诺相反,并可能产生深远影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An EU Fundamental Right to Social Assistance in the Host Member State? The CJEU’s Ambivalent Approach to the Free Movement of Economically Inactive Union Citizens Post Dano
The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信