Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Precedents and Judicial Politics in EU Immigration Law pp 173–285Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Qualitatively Charting Precedents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 278 Accesses

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since 1994 such reports are no longer published within the European Court Reports. Instead, for Reports of the Hearing from 1994 onwards, individual requests on the cases of interest have to be made with the Court’s press and information unit. On the basis of such requests, Reports of the Hearing were obtained for more or less two thirds of the cases selected for qualitative review. They are on file with the author.

  2. 2.

    Besides Ireland, also Finland, the UK and Denmark.

  3. 3.

    The seven other Member States referred to in the Commission report are Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and the Netherlands.

  4. 4.

    The Member States mentioned in this respect are Denmark, France, Hungaria, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden.

  5. 5.

    This reference to the EU Charter’s provisions in EPvCouncil in fact marked the very first Charter reference made in a CJEU judgment (see Iglesias Sanchez, 2012).

  6. 6.

    As can also be noted in this regard, the Zambrano case was decided in Grand Chamber formation, comprising 15 judges, which is likely to have further hindered consensus building (Dawson, 2014).

References

Primary Sources

    EU Law

    • Council Directive 90/364/EEC on the Right of Residence [1990] O.J. L 180/26.

      Google Scholar 

    • Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the Right to Family Reunification [2003] O.J. L 251/12.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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

    • 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 

    • Council of the European Union Press Release 1962nd Council meeting Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels 21 September 2009, 13467/09.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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

    • Case C-40/76 Slavica Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Case C-147/87 Saada Zaoui v Caisse régionale d’assurance maladie de l’Ile-de-France (CRAMIF) [1987] ECR 5511.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Case C-64/96 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1992] ECR I-3171.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-459/99 Mouvement contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (MRAX) v Belgian State [2002] ECR I-6591.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-466/00 Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] ECR I-2219.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-109/01 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Case C-157/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2005] ECR I-2911.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2006] ECR I-1097.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-540/03 European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2006] ECR I-5769.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-1/05 Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket [2006] ECR I-00001.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-291/05 Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R. N. G. Eind [2007] ECR I-10719.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] ECR I-6241.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-1893.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) [2011] ECR I-1177.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] ECR I-3375.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm [2013] OJ C 9/10.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres [2011] ECR I-11315.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-356/11 & C-357/11 O and S v Maahanmuuttovirasto and Maahanmuuttovirasto v L [2013] OJ C 26/19.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • 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

    • 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 

    • Former Council Official (2014). Speaking at an expert seminar organised by the Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS, Brussels, 14 February 2014.

      Google Scholar 

    • Government of the Netherlands (2011). Position paper—The Dutch Standpoint on EU Migration Policy. On File with the Author.

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-370/90) Singh, on file with the author (in English).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-200/02) Zhu & Chen, on file with the author (in English).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-291/05) Eind, on file with the author (in Dutch).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-540/03) EPvCouncil, on file with the author (in Dutch).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-1/05) Jia, on file with the author (in Swedish).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-578/08) Chakroun, on file with the author (in Dutch).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-34/09) Zambrano, on file with the author (in French).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-434/09) McCarthy, on file with the AUTHOR (in English).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-256/11) Dereci, on file with the author (in German).

      Google Scholar 

    • Report for the Hearing in Case (C-356/11 & C-357/11) O&S, on file with the author (in Finnish).

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Barrett, G. (2003). Family Matters: European Community Law and Third-Country Family Members. Common Market Law Review, 40(2), 369–421.

      Google Scholar 

    • Bierbach, J. (2008). Case Note on Eind. European Constitutional Law Review, 4, 344–362.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Bonjour, S., & Vink, M. (2013). When Europeanization Backfires: The Normalization of European Migration Politics. Acta Politica, 48(4), 389–407.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Guild, E., Peers, S., & Tomkin, J. (2014). The EU Citizenship Directive: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hailbronner, K., & Thym, D. (2011). Comment on Zambrano. Common Market Law Review, 48, 1253–1270.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Lenaerts, K. (2015). EU Citizenship and the European Court of Justice’s ‘Stone-by-Stone’ Approach. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 1–10.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Mancini, J. M., & Finlay, G. (2008). ‘Citizenship Matters’: Lessons From the Irish Citizenship Referendum. American Quarterly, 60(3), 575–599.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Olivier, B., & Reestman, J. H. (2007). Case Note on Jia. European Constitutional Law Review, 3, 463–475.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Peers, S. (2009). Free Movement, Immigration Control and Constitutional Conflict. European Constitutional Law Review, 5, 173–196.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Schiltz, C. (2005). Akrich: A Clear Delimitation without Limits. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 12(3), 241–252.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Schmidt, S. (2014). Judicial Europeanisation: The Case of in Ireland. West European Politics, 37(4), 769–785.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Shuibhne, N. (2011). Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs. European Law Review, 36(2), 161–162.

      Google Scholar 

    • Spaventa, E. (2005). Case Note on Akrich. Common Market Law Review, 42, 225–239.

      Google Scholar 

    • Strik, T. (2011). Besluitvorming over asiel- en migratierichtlijnen. De wisselwerking tussen nationaal en Europees niveau. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.

      Google Scholar 

    • Tryfonidou, A. (2007). Jia or “Carpenter II”: The Edge of Reason. European Law Review, 32(6), 908–918.

      Google Scholar 

    • Tryfonidou, A. (2009). Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach. European Law Journal, 15(5), 634–653.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Watson, P. (1993). Free Movement of Workers: A One-Way Ticket? Industrial Law Journal, 22(1), 68–77.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • White, R. (2004). Conflicting Competences: Free Movement Rules and Immigration Laws. European Law Review, 29(3), 385–396.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

      Marie De Somer

    Authors
    1. Marie De Somer
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2019 The Author(s)

    About this chapter

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    De Somer, M. (2019). Qualitatively Charting Precedents. In: Precedents and Judicial Politics in EU Immigration Law. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93982-7_7

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation