Advertisement

Qualitatively Charting Precedents

  • Marie De Somer
Chapter
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

In this chapter, the study proceeds with qualitative and contextualized reviews of the discourses defining the patterns identified in the preceding chapter. In so doing, this third step uncovers the more fine-grained causal mechanisms, of mostly a discursive genature, that are theoretically expected to underpin the workings and effects of reasoning by precedent. The chapter follows the chronological order of the case law record and traces the different discursive structures that underpinned it over time.

Keywords

Discursive structures Legal reasoning Judicial doctrines Substance of the rights doctrine EU citizenship Effet utile Internal rule 

References

Primary Sources

    EU Law

    1. Council Directive 90/364/EEC on the Right of Residence [1990] O.J. L 180/26.Google Scholar
    2. Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the Right to Family Reunification [2003] O.J. L 251/12.Google Scholar
    3. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States [2004] O.J. L 158/77.Google Scholar
    4. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council on Freedom of Movement for Workers within the Community [1968] O.J. 257.Google Scholar

    EU Documents

    1. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on guidance for application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, COM (2014) 210 (final).Google Scholar
    2. Council of the European Union Press Release 1962nd Council meeting Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels 21 September 2009, 13467/09.Google Scholar
    3. Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC), COM (2011) 735 (final).Google Scholar
    4. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, COM (2008) 840 final.Google Scholar

    CJEU Case Law

    1. Case C-40/76 Slavica Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669.Google Scholar
    2. Case C-35/82 Elestina Esselina Christina Morson v State of the Netherlands and Head of the Plaatselijke Politie within the meaning of the Vreemdelingenwet; Sweradjie Jhanjan v State of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723.Google Scholar
    3. Case C-147/87 Saada Zaoui v Caisse régionale d’assurance maladie de l’Ile-de-France (CRAMIF) [1987] ECR 5511.Google Scholar
    4. Case C-370/90 The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for Home Department [1992] ECR I-4265.Google Scholar
    5. Case C-206/91 Ettien Koua Poirrez v Caisse d’allocations familiales de la région parisienne, substituée par la Caisse d’allocations familiales de la Seine-Saint-Denis [1992] ECR I-6685.Google Scholar
    6. Case C-64/96 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1992] ECR I-3171.Google Scholar
    7. Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193.Google Scholar
    8. Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091.Google Scholar
    9. Case C-459/99 Mouvement contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (MRAX) v Belgian State [2002] ECR I-6591.Google Scholar
    10. Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279.Google Scholar
    11. Case C-466/00 Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] ECR I-2219.Google Scholar
    12. Case C-109/01 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607.Google Scholar
    13. Case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] ECR I-9925.Google Scholar
    14. Case C-157/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2005] ECR I-2911.Google Scholar
    15. Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2006] ECR I-1097.Google Scholar
    16. Case C-540/03 European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2006] ECR I-5769.Google Scholar
    17. Case C-1/05 Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket [2006] ECR I-00001.Google Scholar
    18. Case C-291/05 Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R. N. G. Eind [2007] ECR I-10719.Google Scholar
    19. Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] ECR I-6241.Google Scholar
    20. Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-1893.Google Scholar
    21. Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) [2011] ECR I-1177.Google Scholar
    22. Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] ECR I-3375.Google Scholar
    23. Case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm [2013] OJ C 9/10.Google Scholar
    24. Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres [2011] ECR I-11315.Google Scholar
    25. Case C-356/11 & C-357/11 O and S v Maahanmuuttovirasto and Maahanmuuttovirasto v L [2013] OJ C 26/19.Google Scholar
    26. Case C-86/12 Adzo Domenyo Alokpa and Others v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration [2013] OJ C 344/21.Google Scholar
    27. Case C-87/12 Kreshnik Ymeraga and Others v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration [2013] OJ C 225/44.Google Scholar
    28. Case C-456/12 O. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State—Netherlands [2014] OJ C135/5.Google Scholar
    29. Case C-457/12 S. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G. [2014] OJ C135/5.Google Scholar

    Other Sources

    1. Belgian Government, Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs (2009). Written Observation of the Belgian Government on the preliminary reference C-34/09 (Ruiz Zambrano), on file with the author (in French).Google Scholar
    2. Former Council Official (2014). Speaking at an expert seminar organised by the Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS, Brussels, 14 February 2014.Google Scholar
    3. Government of the Netherlands (2011). Position paper—The Dutch Standpoint on EU Migration Policy. On File with the Author.Google Scholar
    4. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-370/90) Singh, on file with the author (in English).Google Scholar
    5. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-200/02) Zhu & Chen, on file with the author (in English).Google Scholar
    6. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-291/05) Eind, on file with the author (in Dutch).Google Scholar
    7. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-540/03) EPvCouncil, on file with the author (in Dutch).Google Scholar
    8. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-1/05) Jia, on file with the author (in Swedish).Google Scholar
    9. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-578/08) Chakroun, on file with the author (in Dutch).Google Scholar
    10. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-34/09) Zambrano, on file with the author (in French).Google Scholar
    11. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-434/09) McCarthy, on file with the AUTHOR (in English).Google Scholar
    12. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-256/11) Dereci, on file with the author (in German).Google Scholar
    13. Report for the Hearing in Case (C-356/11 & C-357/11) O&S, on file with the author (in Finnish).Google Scholar
    14. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2010). Brief van de Minister van justitie aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Vergaderjaar 2009–2010, 32175 Nr. 8.Google Scholar
    15. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2011). Brief van de Minister voor immigratie en asiel aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 19637 Nr. 1408.Google Scholar

Literature

  1. Acierno, S. (2003). The Carpenter Judgment: Fundamental Rights and the Limits of the Community Legal Order. European Law Review, 28(3), 398–407.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, S., & Van Elsuwege, P. (2012). Citizenship Rights and the Federal Balance between the European Union and its Member States: Comment on Dereci. European Law Review, 37(2), 176–190.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, G. (2003). Family Matters: European Community Law and Third-Country Family Members. Common Market Law Review, 40(2), 369–421.Google Scholar
  4. Bierbach, J. (2008). Case Note on Eind. European Constitutional Law Review, 4, 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonjour, S., & Vink, M. (2013). When Europeanization Backfires: The Normalization of European Migration Politics. Acta Politica, 48(4), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cambien, N. (2012). EU Citizenship and the ECJ: Why Care About Primary Carers? Paper presented at the UACES annual conference, 3–5 September 2012, Passau.Google Scholar
  7. Currie, S. (2009). Accelerated Justice or a Step Too Far? Residence Rights of Non-EU Family Members and the Court’s Ruling in Metock. European Law Review, 34(2), 310–326.Google Scholar
  8. Dawson, M. (2014). How Does the European Court of Justice Reason? A Review Essay on the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. European Law Journal, 20(3), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Somer, M. (2012). Enhanced Competences for the European Court of Justice: “Re-shuffling” the Dynamics of EU Migration Policy-Making? LSE Migration Studies Unit Working Papers, No. 2012/01. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  10. Fernhout, R., & Wever, R. (2011). Follow-up of the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thematic. Report 2010–2011. European Network on Free Movement of Workers within the European Union. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen, Centre for Migration Law.Google Scholar
  11. Guild, E., Peers, S., & Tomkin, J. (2014). The EU Citizenship Directive: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hailbronner, K., & Thym, D. (2011). Comment on Zambrano. Common Market Law Review, 48, 1253–1270.Google Scholar
  13. Hardy, J. (2012). The Objective of Directive 2003/86 Is to Promote the Family Reunification of Third Country Nationals. European Journal of Migration and Law, 14, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofstotter, B. (2005). A Cascade of Rights, or Who Shall Care For little Catherine? Some Reflections on the Chen Case. European Law Review, 30(4), 548–558.Google Scholar
  15. Iglesias Sanchez, S. (2012). The Court and the Charter: The Impact of the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ECJ’s Approach to Fundamental Rights. Common Market Law Review, 49(5), 1565–1612.Google Scholar
  16. Lansbergen, A., & Miller, N. (2011). European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? Case note on Ruiz Zambrano. European Constitutional Law Review, 7, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Legomsky, S. (2011). Rationing Family Values in Europe and America: An Immigration Tug of War between States and Their Supra-National Associations. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 25, 807–858.Google Scholar
  18. Lenaerts, K. (2011). ‘Civis europaeus sum’: From the Cross-border Link to the Status of Citizen of the Union. Online Journal on Free Movement of Workers within the European Union, 3, 6–18.Google Scholar
  19. Lenaerts, K. (2015). EU Citizenship and the European Court of Justice’s ‘Stone-by-Stone’ Approach. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mancini, J. M., & Finlay, G. (2008). ‘Citizenship Matters’: Lessons From the Irish Citizenship Referendum. American Quarterly, 60(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menz, G. (2011). Stopping, Shaping and Moulding Europe: Two-Level Games, Non-State Actors and the Europeanization of Migration Policies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olivier, B., & Reestman, J. H. (2007). Case Note on Jia. European Constitutional Law Review, 3, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peers, S. (2009). Free Movement, Immigration Control and Constitutional Conflict. European Constitutional Law Review, 5, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schiltz, C. (2005). Akrich: A Clear Delimitation without Limits. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 12(3), 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, S. (2014). Judicial Europeanisation: The Case of in Ireland. West European Politics, 37(4), 769–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoenmaekers, S., & Hoogenboom, A. (2014). Singh and Carpenter Revisited: Some Progress but no Final Clarity. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 21(3), 494–513.Google Scholar
  27. Shuibhne, N. (2011). Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs. European Law Review, 36(2), 161–162.Google Scholar
  28. Spaventa, E. (2005). Case Note on Akrich. Common Market Law Review, 42, 225–239.Google Scholar
  29. Strik, T. (2011). Besluitvorming over asiel- en migratierichtlijnen. De wisselwerking tussen nationaal en Europees niveau. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.Google Scholar
  30. Tryfonidou, A. (2007). Jia or “Carpenter II”: The Edge of Reason. European Law Review, 32(6), 908–918.Google Scholar
  31. Tryfonidou, A. (2009). Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach. European Law Journal, 15(5), 634–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Mei, A. P. (2003). Residence and the Evolving Notion of European Union Citizenship. Comments on Baumbast v Secretary of State for Home Department, 17 September 2002 (Case C-143/99). European Journal of Migration and Law, 5, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Elsuwege, P., & Kochenov, D. (2011). On the Limits of Judicial Intervention: EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights. European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(4), 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, P. (1993). Free Movement of Workers: A One-Way Ticket? Industrial Law Journal, 22(1), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, R. (2004). Conflicting Competences: Free Movement Rules and Immigration Laws. European Law Review, 29(3), 385–396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie De Somer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations