Open Access
Why did the citizenship jurisprudence change?
Loading...
Files
Why_citizenship_2017.pdf (316.79 KB)
Full-text in Open Access, Published version
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Daniel THYM (ed.), Questioning EU citizenship : judges and the limits of free movement and solidarity in the EU, Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2017, Modern studies in European law, pp. 89-110
Cite
SADL, Urska, SANKARI, Suvi, Why did the citizenship jurisprudence change?, in Daniel THYM (ed.), Questioning EU citizenship : judges and the limits of free movement and solidarity in the EU, Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2017, Modern studies in European law, pp. 89-110 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/76574
Abstract
The overall aim of this volume is twofold. First, it tries to deconstruct legal, political and social forces that affect the European citizenship jurisprudence generally. Second, and more particularly, it seeks to explain and contextualise the Court’s shift towards a restrictive approach to free movement rights of European citizens. So far, literature has singled out two structural elements and three contextual factors, which could make the latter shift intelligible: the role of the legislator in the European Union (EU) and the role of law writ large, as well as the financial, the constitutional (Brexit) and the migration crisis. The latter especially increased the pressure on the European Court of Justice (the Court) to prioritise the general interests of the Member States over the colliding interests of individual European citizens. In this chapter, we do not question this explanation or the legal claim that the citizenship jurisprudence has become more restrictive. Instead, we raise the question whether two institutional factors, namely internal reorganisation and the professional composition of the Court contributed to this process of transformation alongside the external factors already identified.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 26 February 2018