Marie-Pierre Granger - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Drafts by Marie-Pierre Granger

European Journal of Law Reform, 2018

While academic contributions abound on the reach and impact of the European Union (EU) system of ... more While academic contributions abound on the reach and impact of the European Union (EU) system of fundamental rights protection, and notably on the desirability of a more or less extensive control of Member States’ actions in light of the rights protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, there have been few attempts to explain the dynamics of integration-through-rights in the EU. This article proposes an explanatory framework inspired by a legal opportunities approach, which emphasizes the relevance of national and EU legal opportunities, and interactions between them, in determining the actual scope and pace of federalization through rights in the EU. It suggests that the weaker the legal opportunities for fundamental rights protection are at the domestic level, the greater the federalizing pressure is, and call for more empirical comparative studies to test this framework out.

Papers by Marie-Pierre Granger

European Public Law

This article analyzes the recent ‘pro–European’ case law of the French Conseil d’État and Conseil... more This article analyzes the recent ‘pro–European’ case law of the French Conseil d’État and Conseil Constitutionnel in the light of its wider legal and political context, in order to identify the reasons behind this jurisprudential evolution. It concludes that, paradoxically, this jurisprudence is not motivated by pro–European considerations, but by the desire to restore French influence in Europe, protect French fundamental values and interests, and increase the scope of judicial control over the French Legislator and Administration. Cet article analyse la récente jurisprudence ‘pro–européenne’ du Conseil d’État et du Conseil Constitutionnel à la lumière de son environnement légal et politique, afin d’identifier les raisons de cette évolution jurisprudentielle. Il conclut que, de façon assez paradoxale, cette jurisprudence n’est pas motivée par des considérations en faveur de l’intégration européenne, mais par un désir de restaurer l’influence française en Europe,de protéger les vale...

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Item does not contain fulltex

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Research Handbook on the Politics of EU Law, 2020

Is there ever an ideal time to publish a volume on the contemporary state of law and politics in ... more Is there ever an ideal time to publish a volume on the contemporary state of law and politics in the European Union (EU)? The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), having 'rescued' parts of the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, was supposed to herald a new chapter in European integration, with greater institutional stability and coherence, a consolidation of its achievements and a focus on furthering integration in areas where only limited steps had been taken. However, despite the advanced stage of European integration, the decade since Lisbon has been marked by a series of crises. Whilst the EU is certainly used to facing serious crises, dealing with them and often emerging with renewed goals and impetus, many of the recent challenges are unprecedented and go to the heart of what the EU is-and stands for. The economic and financial crises; questions over the future of the euro; the lack of collective responses to migration and regional instability; democratic and rule of law backsliding in some Member States; the UK referendum on leaving the EU and the complexities of Brexit negotiations, and more recently the challenges of coordinating the fight against the coronavirus pandemia, have dominated the debates. All bring to the fore the complex relationship between law and politics in the EU, and revive or renew discussions about the role of law and legal actors in European integration. Law has always played a central role in European integration. 1 Whilst new forms of integration take shape, and modes of governance have diversified, law continues to play a primordial, yet evolving, role in EU integration and governance in general, and in addressing these multiple challenges. EU law, in any case, does not operate in a political and social vacuum. It is influenced by multiple societal forces and impacts back on them in a continually iterative process. This Research Handbook introduces and considers contemporary academic perspectives on the politics of EU law. Its object of study is the law of the EU, in its various forms and shapes, its complex and multifaceted institutional framework and system of governance, the broad spectrum of policies it covers, and its relationship with emerging forms of global law. The ongoing challenges facing the EU have thrown a different light on European integration and governance, and invited (or even forced) scholars to revisit some assumptions about the dynamics, nature and purpose 1

Item does not contain fulltext336 p

Utrecht University researchers dr. Hanneke van Eijken LL.M and Pauline Phoa, LL.M have prepared a... more Utrecht University researchers dr. Hanneke van Eijken LL.M and Pauline Phoa, LL.M have prepared a general report which provides a comparative and critical overview of the exercise of so-called core EU citizenship rights in selected Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Spain). 1 Core EU citizenship rights include access to and loss of nationality (and thereby also the acquisition and loss of the EU citizenship status), the right to reside in a host Member State and in the Member State of nationality, the right to family reunification in a Member State for EU citizens, the right to free movement of EU citizens and the derogations to those rights: expulsion measures and abuse situations. Rules on nationality fall, in principle within the exclusive scope of competence of Member States. However, on the one hand the access to MS nationality opens up EU citizenship to TCN, or has consequences for migrated EU citizens and their children. On the other hand, the CJEU decision in the case of Rottmann (C-135/08) has made clear that the loss of Member State nationality may bring nationality laws within the scope of EU law, as it may also affect a person's status as EU citizen. "Under international law, it is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality" (par. 10). Nowadays it is clear that Member States have to take into account the outer limits of EU law in their competence to regulate nationality laws. The description of the nationality laws in the reported Member States do not always reflect an awareness on the side of the national authorities of the consequences EU citizenship rights for their nationality law. The EU citizenship right to freedom of movement and the right to reside in another Member State have been established in primary and secondary EU law for a while now, and the implementation of these rights into formal national law seem to be relatively unproblematic in most Member States. However, the answers to the questionnaire show that there is a significant gap between formal law and the actual operationalization of these rights in day-today (administrative and judicial) practice. Certain key concepts of EU citizenship rights, such as "sufficient resources", are subject to differing interpretations in the different Member States, which is undesirable from the perspective of coherence and uniformity of EU law. Connected to the general EU citizenship right to free movement and residence, are the rights to family reunification, either with family members holding the nationality of another Member States, or with third country national family members. Such family members may have-under certain conditions-a right of free movement and/or residence that is derived from their EU citizen family member's core EU citizenship rights. In this area of law, the national reports again show that there are disparities between Member States in the judicial interpretation and/or administrative application of concepts such as "dependent family member", and "genuine relationship", which may form obstacles to a full use of the opportunities that EU law offers. The EU Treaties and EU secondary legislation allow for certain derogations or limitations to the core EU citizenship rights of free movement and residence. Member States may take expulsion measures and measures preventing or punishing abuse of EU rights, under certain conditions. The national reports show that there are interpretive difficulties on these topics, and that there is a growing tendency to connect having insufficient resources with unlawful residence. 1 The authors would like to thank the national rapporteurs for their input and comments on earlier versions of this report, and would like to thank Mónica Ferrin and Dorota Lepianka for reviewing the draft of this report and for providing their valuable feedback. 2 3 This present case study will focus specifically on actual and potential barriers to core EU citizenship rights. These core EU citizenship rights entail, for the purpose of this deliverable, access to and loss of nationality (and thereby also the acquisition and loss of the EU citizenship status), the right to reside in a host Member State and in the Member State of nationality, the right to family reunification in a Member State for EU citizens, the right to free movement of EU citizens and the derogations to those rights: expulsion measures and abuse situations. The questionnaire, as included in the annex to this General Report, is structured around these themes. This report first discusses the European context of core EU citizenship rights (Section 2), in order to have a clear understanding of what belongs to these core citizenship rights. Section 3 brings together the observations from the national reports. For the present case study, national reports have been prepared in six Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Spain). 4 Although the conclusions drawn from these reports may not be entirely representative for the whole of the EU, they may give important information about legal and practical obstacles that may be more common throughout the Union. A further limitation is that the national rapporteurs are all legal academics, so the questionnaire, the ensuing national reports, and also the present General Report, only take a legal point of view, detailing legislation, national administrative decisions and national case law, and not, for instance, quantitative data. The purpose of the report is to give insight in, and compare, obstacles at national level for EU citizens to exercise their core citizenship rights, to place these in the context of the developments at EU level that will be discussed in Section 2, and to make observations and recommendations that may set the agenda for future action on a national and/or EU level.

Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 18.07.2016 Sybe de Vries Final deliverable submitt... more Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 18.07.2016 Sybe de Vries Final deliverable submitted Partners involved number partner name People involved

For a long time, the day-to-day application of European Union (EU) law relied largely on national... more For a long time, the day-to-day application of European Union (EU) law relied largely on national judicial procedures and did not require the creation of special EU remedies.2 In its famous Francovich ruling, decided 25 years ago, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)3 departed from this principle of national procedural autonomy and ruled that the remedy of state liability for violation of EU law was ‘inherent’ in the Treaty.4 Over the years, the ECJ brought together the EU and the state liability regimes, adopting the same set of requirements for actions in damages for breaches of EU law, irrespective of whether they originate in EU institutions or national authorities.5 In Brasserie/Factortame, the ECJ specified the three conditions under which liability for violation of EU

The New EU Judiciary is the first book that offers a timely and thorough assessment of recent and... more The New EU Judiciary is the first book that offers a timely and thorough assessment of recent and ongoing changes to the operation of the European Union (EU) Judiciary, and it reflects on the future shape of the EU judicial system. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most significant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader reflection on the changing role of the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this book brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of the reforms of the EU Judiciary and its overall functioning, from ‘comparative’, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives.

Offering a wealth of thought-provoking insights, this topical Research Handbook analyses the inte... more Offering a wealth of thought-provoking insights, this topical Research Handbook analyses the interplay between the law and politics of the EU and examines the role of law and legal actors in European integration. Expert contributors from international and interdisciplinary backgrounds set the politics of EU law in both a historical and contemporary context, exploring the relations between different EU institutions across a variety of substantive policy areas. Identifying the main sites of interaction between law and politics, chapters highlight key theoretical insights providing an in-depth understanding of the field. With up-to-date coverage of the latest developments, this Research Handbook analyses the impact of Brexit, economic and financial crises, migration crises and important trends for law and governance. Discerning and forward-thinking, this Research Handbook will be key reading for students and scholars of European law, European politics, and those with an interest in exp...

Justice and Vulnerability in Europe, 2020

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Civil rights are core citizenship rights. The term itself is in fact derived from the Latin ius c... more Civil rights are core citizenship rights. The term itself is in fact derived from the Latin ius civis, referring to 'the rights of the citizen'. Civil rights form the basis that supports the exercise of other rights, be they political, economic or social. Therefore, one cannot engage in an examination or appraisal of the concept and practice of EU citizenship, and of the barriers which actually or potentially hinder its development and exercise, without a thorough investigation of the civil rights that are associated with it. For that reason, due attention was given to this thematic within the interdisciplinary research project 'bEUcitizen' that gave rise to a whole series of books, of which the present volume constitutes merely one tome. An enquiry into the civil rights attached to EU citizenship is complicated by the multilevel and multi-layered nature of the concept. First, as a status, EU citizenship is dependent on national citizenship, complementing it without replacing it. 1 Second, it interacts, overlaps and competes with national citizenship, as well as with other formal and informal community memberships across Europe. As such, EU citizenship does not directly confer civil rights beyond a limited right to move and reside in other Member States. However, alongside a growing fundamental rights acquis guaranteed at the supranational level, the concept has helped to enhance the access to, and the exercise of, a range of civil rights across the Member States. Moreover, this dynamic has produced some significant transformative effects on 1 Art 9 of the Treaty establishing the European Union; Art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEU).

European Journal of Law Reform, 2018

Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 2006

European integration, its decision-making process is little studied. In particular, the interacti... more European integration, its decision-making process is little studied. In particular, the interactions between the political and the legal arena deserve greater attention. Member States' governments and the ECJ are usually presented as two separate and competing entities, whilst in fact there is a great deal of interaction between these two institutional actors. This article, based on extensive comparative empirical research, uses US sociolegal scholarship on litigation to analyse governments' litigation in a way which contributes to current theoretical understandings of judicial decision-making, European integration and Europeanisation. It identifi es, describes, compares and analyses governments' EU litigation strategies, in order to assess whether and how governments infl uence European legal developments through litigation. It also stresses the need for governments of the new Member States and candidate countries to understand the importance of adopting a strong and consistent EU litigation strategy, so as to play their part in the development of EU law. 'The Court is a political organ, which and within which we must fi ght.' 3 1 This article is based on a paper prepared for the Workshop Advanced Issues of European Law-European Law in Pre-accession Period: Implementation, Effectiveness and Legal Culture-4 th session: 26 February-5 March 2006. It builds upon a previous article by the author, 'When governments go to Luxembourg…: the infl uence of governments on the Court of Justice' (2004) 29 ELR 3, updating it, extending the analysis to new Member States, adding a perspective on candidate countries, and integrating wider theoretical debates.

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship, 2018

Environmental Law Review, 2003

Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores (UPA) was an association representing and acting in the interests... more Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores (UPA) was an association representing and acting in the interests of small Spanish farms. In October 1998 it brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) under Article 230 EC (ex Article 173 EC) for the annulment of some provisions of a 1998 EC Regulation’ which, by reforming the common organisation of the olive oil market, threatened the survival of small farms, represented by UPA. The association raised various grounds for the annulment of the Regulation,2 including breaches of a series of fundamental rights and Community principle^.^ Yet, before UPA could plead its case on the merits, its action had to be declared admissible, and in particular the association had to be granted standing to challenge the Regulation under Article 230(4) EC. Unfortunately, in 1999, the third chamber of the CFI upheld the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council.4 That court recalled that, according to the settled case law,5 natural and legal persons could challenge an EC regulation if they were ‘directly and individually concerned by it. It reminded, however, that associations could be ‘individually concerned only in very specific circumstances,6 which were not present in the case at hand. Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores had argued that it should nonetheless be granted standing, to the extent that the review of the legality of the contested provision was a matter

European Journal of Law Reform, 2018

While academic contributions abound on the reach and impact of the European Union (EU) system of ... more While academic contributions abound on the reach and impact of the European Union (EU) system of fundamental rights protection, and notably on the desirability of a more or less extensive control of Member States’ actions in light of the rights protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, there have been few attempts to explain the dynamics of integration-through-rights in the EU. This article proposes an explanatory framework inspired by a legal opportunities approach, which emphasizes the relevance of national and EU legal opportunities, and interactions between them, in determining the actual scope and pace of federalization through rights in the EU. It suggests that the weaker the legal opportunities for fundamental rights protection are at the domestic level, the greater the federalizing pressure is, and call for more empirical comparative studies to test this framework out.

European Public Law

This article analyzes the recent ‘pro–European’ case law of the French Conseil d’État and Conseil... more This article analyzes the recent ‘pro–European’ case law of the French Conseil d’État and Conseil Constitutionnel in the light of its wider legal and political context, in order to identify the reasons behind this jurisprudential evolution. It concludes that, paradoxically, this jurisprudence is not motivated by pro–European considerations, but by the desire to restore French influence in Europe, protect French fundamental values and interests, and increase the scope of judicial control over the French Legislator and Administration. Cet article analyse la récente jurisprudence ‘pro–européenne’ du Conseil d’État et du Conseil Constitutionnel à la lumière de son environnement légal et politique, afin d’identifier les raisons de cette évolution jurisprudentielle. Il conclut que, de façon assez paradoxale, cette jurisprudence n’est pas motivée par des considérations en faveur de l’intégration européenne, mais par un désir de restaurer l’influence française en Europe,de protéger les vale...

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Item does not contain fulltex

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Research Handbook on the Politics of EU Law, 2020

Is there ever an ideal time to publish a volume on the contemporary state of law and politics in ... more Is there ever an ideal time to publish a volume on the contemporary state of law and politics in the European Union (EU)? The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), having 'rescued' parts of the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, was supposed to herald a new chapter in European integration, with greater institutional stability and coherence, a consolidation of its achievements and a focus on furthering integration in areas where only limited steps had been taken. However, despite the advanced stage of European integration, the decade since Lisbon has been marked by a series of crises. Whilst the EU is certainly used to facing serious crises, dealing with them and often emerging with renewed goals and impetus, many of the recent challenges are unprecedented and go to the heart of what the EU is-and stands for. The economic and financial crises; questions over the future of the euro; the lack of collective responses to migration and regional instability; democratic and rule of law backsliding in some Member States; the UK referendum on leaving the EU and the complexities of Brexit negotiations, and more recently the challenges of coordinating the fight against the coronavirus pandemia, have dominated the debates. All bring to the fore the complex relationship between law and politics in the EU, and revive or renew discussions about the role of law and legal actors in European integration. Law has always played a central role in European integration. 1 Whilst new forms of integration take shape, and modes of governance have diversified, law continues to play a primordial, yet evolving, role in EU integration and governance in general, and in addressing these multiple challenges. EU law, in any case, does not operate in a political and social vacuum. It is influenced by multiple societal forces and impacts back on them in a continually iterative process. This Research Handbook introduces and considers contemporary academic perspectives on the politics of EU law. Its object of study is the law of the EU, in its various forms and shapes, its complex and multifaceted institutional framework and system of governance, the broad spectrum of policies it covers, and its relationship with emerging forms of global law. The ongoing challenges facing the EU have thrown a different light on European integration and governance, and invited (or even forced) scholars to revisit some assumptions about the dynamics, nature and purpose 1

Item does not contain fulltext336 p

Utrecht University researchers dr. Hanneke van Eijken LL.M and Pauline Phoa, LL.M have prepared a... more Utrecht University researchers dr. Hanneke van Eijken LL.M and Pauline Phoa, LL.M have prepared a general report which provides a comparative and critical overview of the exercise of so-called core EU citizenship rights in selected Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Spain). 1 Core EU citizenship rights include access to and loss of nationality (and thereby also the acquisition and loss of the EU citizenship status), the right to reside in a host Member State and in the Member State of nationality, the right to family reunification in a Member State for EU citizens, the right to free movement of EU citizens and the derogations to those rights: expulsion measures and abuse situations. Rules on nationality fall, in principle within the exclusive scope of competence of Member States. However, on the one hand the access to MS nationality opens up EU citizenship to TCN, or has consequences for migrated EU citizens and their children. On the other hand, the CJEU decision in the case of Rottmann (C-135/08) has made clear that the loss of Member State nationality may bring nationality laws within the scope of EU law, as it may also affect a person's status as EU citizen. "Under international law, it is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality" (par. 10). Nowadays it is clear that Member States have to take into account the outer limits of EU law in their competence to regulate nationality laws. The description of the nationality laws in the reported Member States do not always reflect an awareness on the side of the national authorities of the consequences EU citizenship rights for their nationality law. The EU citizenship right to freedom of movement and the right to reside in another Member State have been established in primary and secondary EU law for a while now, and the implementation of these rights into formal national law seem to be relatively unproblematic in most Member States. However, the answers to the questionnaire show that there is a significant gap between formal law and the actual operationalization of these rights in day-today (administrative and judicial) practice. Certain key concepts of EU citizenship rights, such as "sufficient resources", are subject to differing interpretations in the different Member States, which is undesirable from the perspective of coherence and uniformity of EU law. Connected to the general EU citizenship right to free movement and residence, are the rights to family reunification, either with family members holding the nationality of another Member States, or with third country national family members. Such family members may have-under certain conditions-a right of free movement and/or residence that is derived from their EU citizen family member's core EU citizenship rights. In this area of law, the national reports again show that there are disparities between Member States in the judicial interpretation and/or administrative application of concepts such as "dependent family member", and "genuine relationship", which may form obstacles to a full use of the opportunities that EU law offers. The EU Treaties and EU secondary legislation allow for certain derogations or limitations to the core EU citizenship rights of free movement and residence. Member States may take expulsion measures and measures preventing or punishing abuse of EU rights, under certain conditions. The national reports show that there are interpretive difficulties on these topics, and that there is a growing tendency to connect having insufficient resources with unlawful residence. 1 The authors would like to thank the national rapporteurs for their input and comments on earlier versions of this report, and would like to thank Mónica Ferrin and Dorota Lepianka for reviewing the draft of this report and for providing their valuable feedback. 2 3 This present case study will focus specifically on actual and potential barriers to core EU citizenship rights. These core EU citizenship rights entail, for the purpose of this deliverable, access to and loss of nationality (and thereby also the acquisition and loss of the EU citizenship status), the right to reside in a host Member State and in the Member State of nationality, the right to family reunification in a Member State for EU citizens, the right to free movement of EU citizens and the derogations to those rights: expulsion measures and abuse situations. The questionnaire, as included in the annex to this General Report, is structured around these themes. This report first discusses the European context of core EU citizenship rights (Section 2), in order to have a clear understanding of what belongs to these core citizenship rights. Section 3 brings together the observations from the national reports. For the present case study, national reports have been prepared in six Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Spain). 4 Although the conclusions drawn from these reports may not be entirely representative for the whole of the EU, they may give important information about legal and practical obstacles that may be more common throughout the Union. A further limitation is that the national rapporteurs are all legal academics, so the questionnaire, the ensuing national reports, and also the present General Report, only take a legal point of view, detailing legislation, national administrative decisions and national case law, and not, for instance, quantitative data. The purpose of the report is to give insight in, and compare, obstacles at national level for EU citizens to exercise their core citizenship rights, to place these in the context of the developments at EU level that will be discussed in Section 2, and to make observations and recommendations that may set the agenda for future action on a national and/or EU level.

Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 18.07.2016 Sybe de Vries Final deliverable submitt... more Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 18.07.2016 Sybe de Vries Final deliverable submitted Partners involved number partner name People involved

For a long time, the day-to-day application of European Union (EU) law relied largely on national... more For a long time, the day-to-day application of European Union (EU) law relied largely on national judicial procedures and did not require the creation of special EU remedies.2 In its famous Francovich ruling, decided 25 years ago, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)3 departed from this principle of national procedural autonomy and ruled that the remedy of state liability for violation of EU law was ‘inherent’ in the Treaty.4 Over the years, the ECJ brought together the EU and the state liability regimes, adopting the same set of requirements for actions in damages for breaches of EU law, irrespective of whether they originate in EU institutions or national authorities.5 In Brasserie/Factortame, the ECJ specified the three conditions under which liability for violation of EU

The New EU Judiciary is the first book that offers a timely and thorough assessment of recent and... more The New EU Judiciary is the first book that offers a timely and thorough assessment of recent and ongoing changes to the operation of the European Union (EU) Judiciary, and it reflects on the future shape of the EU judicial system. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most significant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader reflection on the changing role of the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this book brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of the reforms of the EU Judiciary and its overall functioning, from ‘comparative’, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives.

Offering a wealth of thought-provoking insights, this topical Research Handbook analyses the inte... more Offering a wealth of thought-provoking insights, this topical Research Handbook analyses the interplay between the law and politics of the EU and examines the role of law and legal actors in European integration. Expert contributors from international and interdisciplinary backgrounds set the politics of EU law in both a historical and contemporary context, exploring the relations between different EU institutions across a variety of substantive policy areas. Identifying the main sites of interaction between law and politics, chapters highlight key theoretical insights providing an in-depth understanding of the field. With up-to-date coverage of the latest developments, this Research Handbook analyses the impact of Brexit, economic and financial crises, migration crises and important trends for law and governance. Discerning and forward-thinking, this Research Handbook will be key reading for students and scholars of European law, European politics, and those with an interest in exp...

Justice and Vulnerability in Europe, 2020

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship

Civil rights are core citizenship rights. The term itself is in fact derived from the Latin ius c... more Civil rights are core citizenship rights. The term itself is in fact derived from the Latin ius civis, referring to 'the rights of the citizen'. Civil rights form the basis that supports the exercise of other rights, be they political, economic or social. Therefore, one cannot engage in an examination or appraisal of the concept and practice of EU citizenship, and of the barriers which actually or potentially hinder its development and exercise, without a thorough investigation of the civil rights that are associated with it. For that reason, due attention was given to this thematic within the interdisciplinary research project 'bEUcitizen' that gave rise to a whole series of books, of which the present volume constitutes merely one tome. An enquiry into the civil rights attached to EU citizenship is complicated by the multilevel and multi-layered nature of the concept. First, as a status, EU citizenship is dependent on national citizenship, complementing it without replacing it. 1 Second, it interacts, overlaps and competes with national citizenship, as well as with other formal and informal community memberships across Europe. As such, EU citizenship does not directly confer civil rights beyond a limited right to move and reside in other Member States. However, alongside a growing fundamental rights acquis guaranteed at the supranational level, the concept has helped to enhance the access to, and the exercise of, a range of civil rights across the Member States. Moreover, this dynamic has produced some significant transformative effects on 1 Art 9 of the Treaty establishing the European Union; Art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEU).

European Journal of Law Reform, 2018

Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 2006

European integration, its decision-making process is little studied. In particular, the interacti... more European integration, its decision-making process is little studied. In particular, the interactions between the political and the legal arena deserve greater attention. Member States' governments and the ECJ are usually presented as two separate and competing entities, whilst in fact there is a great deal of interaction between these two institutional actors. This article, based on extensive comparative empirical research, uses US sociolegal scholarship on litigation to analyse governments' litigation in a way which contributes to current theoretical understandings of judicial decision-making, European integration and Europeanisation. It identifi es, describes, compares and analyses governments' EU litigation strategies, in order to assess whether and how governments infl uence European legal developments through litigation. It also stresses the need for governments of the new Member States and candidate countries to understand the importance of adopting a strong and consistent EU litigation strategy, so as to play their part in the development of EU law. 'The Court is a political organ, which and within which we must fi ght.' 3 1 This article is based on a paper prepared for the Workshop Advanced Issues of European Law-European Law in Pre-accession Period: Implementation, Effectiveness and Legal Culture-4 th session: 26 February-5 March 2006. It builds upon a previous article by the author, 'When governments go to Luxembourg…: the infl uence of governments on the Court of Justice' (2004) 29 ELR 3, updating it, extending the analysis to new Member States, adding a perspective on candidate countries, and integrating wider theoretical debates.

Civil Rights and EU Citizenship, 2018

Environmental Law Review, 2003

Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores (UPA) was an association representing and acting in the interests... more Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores (UPA) was an association representing and acting in the interests of small Spanish farms. In October 1998 it brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) under Article 230 EC (ex Article 173 EC) for the annulment of some provisions of a 1998 EC Regulation’ which, by reforming the common organisation of the olive oil market, threatened the survival of small farms, represented by UPA. The association raised various grounds for the annulment of the Regulation,2 including breaches of a series of fundamental rights and Community principle^.^ Yet, before UPA could plead its case on the merits, its action had to be declared admissible, and in particular the association had to be granted standing to challenge the Regulation under Article 230(4) EC. Unfortunately, in 1999, the third chamber of the CFI upheld the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council.4 That court recalled that, according to the settled case law,5 natural and legal persons could challenge an EC regulation if they were ‘directly and individually concerned by it. It reminded, however, that associations could be ‘individually concerned only in very specific circumstances,6 which were not present in the case at hand. Uni6n de Pequefios Agricultores had argued that it should nonetheless be granted standing, to the extent that the review of the legality of the contested provision was a matter

Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 3-02-2015 Hanneke van Eijken Final document delive... more Change log Version Date amended by changes 1.0 3-02-2015 Hanneke van Eijken Final document delivered Partners involved number partner name People involved