Pub Date : 2021-09-13DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211028427
Erica Howard
This article examines the Opinion of AG Rantos in two cases concerning Islamic headscarves before the CJEU and argues that this Opinion appears to give almost carte blanche to (private) employers to adopt neutrality policies in their workplaces based on the wishes of their customers. In doing so, the AG appears to allow employers to pander to the prejudices of their customers and to push believers, and especially Muslim women, even further out of sight. It is argued that this affects not only the employment opportunities, but also the social inclusion of people from groups especially vulnerable to discrimination and that this goes against the founding values of the EU. The CJEU now has a choice: it can choose to protect the fundamental rights of religious minorities by taking these rights into account when assessing the two cases before it, or it can allow employers to pander to the prejudice of customers against people from religious minorities.
{"title":"Headscarves and the CJEU: Protecting fundamental rights or pandering to prejudice","authors":"Erica Howard","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211028427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211028427","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the Opinion of AG Rantos in two cases concerning Islamic headscarves before the CJEU and argues that this Opinion appears to give almost carte blanche to (private) employers to adopt neutrality policies in their workplaces based on the wishes of their customers. In doing so, the AG appears to allow employers to pander to the prejudices of their customers and to push believers, and especially Muslim women, even further out of sight. It is argued that this affects not only the employment opportunities, but also the social inclusion of people from groups especially vulnerable to discrimination and that this goes against the founding values of the EU. The CJEU now has a choice: it can choose to protect the fundamental rights of religious minorities by taking these rights into account when assessing the two cases before it, or it can allow employers to pander to the prejudice of customers against people from religious minorities.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"648 - 666"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46840143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211034098
P. Foubert, Alicia Hendricks
Syndicat CFTC v. CPAM provided an excellent opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to reconsider its position taken in the Hofmann case, regarding the question to what extent additional maternity leave can be exclusively reserved for female workers without infringing Directive 2006/54. Whilst the CJEU has narrowed the grey zone, it refrains from clearly indicating the boundaries between ‘maternity’ and ‘parenthood’ and leaves that for the Member States to decide. Against this backdrop, this case note argues that the CJEU should cease to conflate both concepts, as it cements women into their traditional role as primary caregivers and keeps men in a role subsidiary to that of women with respect to the exercise of parental responsibilities. Ultimately, child-care related leave should be approached from a rights perspective, taking into account the best interests of the child.
{"title":"Additional (maternity) leave for women only? The Court of Justice refines its Hofmann test in Syndicat CFTC (C-463/19) yet forgets about the children","authors":"P. Foubert, Alicia Hendricks","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211034098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211034098","url":null,"abstract":"Syndicat CFTC v. CPAM provided an excellent opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to reconsider its position taken in the Hofmann case, regarding the question to what extent additional maternity leave can be exclusively reserved for female workers without infringing Directive 2006/54. Whilst the CJEU has narrowed the grey zone, it refrains from clearly indicating the boundaries between ‘maternity’ and ‘parenthood’ and leaves that for the Member States to decide. Against this backdrop, this case note argues that the CJEU should cease to conflate both concepts, as it cements women into their traditional role as primary caregivers and keeps men in a role subsidiary to that of women with respect to the exercise of parental responsibilities. Ultimately, child-care related leave should be approached from a rights perspective, taking into account the best interests of the child.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"908 - 918"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48852118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-18DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211024991
Erich Vranes
This article analyses the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 (Central European University), in which the Court found that two amendments to Hungary’s Law on Higher Education violate EU law and the WTO GATS Agreement. The ruling is remarkable in legal and political terms: it touches upon a series of fundamental issues, such as the EU’s efforts to protect European values, democracy and the rule of law in its Member States, infringement proceedings against Member States for their failure to comply with international agreements, the applicability of the Fundamental Rights Charter in EU external relations, the tension between the ECJ and the WTO dispute settlement system, national measures enacted to ward off ‘undesirable’ investments and other cross-cutting questions of EU law.
{"title":"Enforcing WTO/GATS law and fundamental rights in EU infringement proceedings: An analysis of the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 Central European University","authors":"Erich Vranes","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211024991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211024991","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 (Central European University), in which the Court found that two amendments to Hungary’s Law on Higher Education violate EU law and the WTO GATS Agreement. The ruling is remarkable in legal and political terms: it touches upon a series of fundamental issues, such as the EU’s efforts to protect European values, democracy and the rule of law in its Member States, infringement proceedings against Member States for their failure to comply with international agreements, the applicability of the Fundamental Rights Charter in EU external relations, the tension between the ECJ and the WTO dispute settlement system, national measures enacted to ward off ‘undesirable’ investments and other cross-cutting questions of EU law.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"699 - 713"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46939750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-12DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211030434
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
On 15 December 2020, the European Commission presented its long-anticipated Digital Services and Digital Market Acts proposals. If and when adopted, those proposals would put in place a more stringent regulatory framework ensuring coordinated oversight over the online platform services and digital markets. They would also enhance EU coordinated and direct enforcement in the digital economy, by streamlining the organization and sanctioning powers of national administrative bodies and granting the European Commission far-reaching market supervision and enforcement powers. This legal development article analyses both Acts and calls on the EU legislator to pay sufficient attention to ensuring the feasibility of new regulatory obligations and to foreseeing better procedural safeguards accompanying Commission direct enforcement practices.
{"title":"The Commission’s digital services and markets act proposals: First step towards tougher and more directly enforced EU rules?","authors":"Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211030434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211030434","url":null,"abstract":"On 15 December 2020, the European Commission presented its long-anticipated Digital Services and Digital Market Acts proposals. If and when adopted, those proposals would put in place a more stringent regulatory framework ensuring coordinated oversight over the online platform services and digital markets. They would also enhance EU coordinated and direct enforcement in the digital economy, by streamlining the organization and sanctioning powers of national administrative bodies and granting the European Commission far-reaching market supervision and enforcement powers. This legal development article analyses both Acts and calls on the EU legislator to pay sufficient attention to ensuring the feasibility of new regulatory obligations and to foreseeing better procedural safeguards accompanying Commission direct enforcement practices.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"46 2","pages":"667 - 686"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41288289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-12DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211021765
A. Aranguiz
Ever since the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EU seems committed to explore and expand its social dimension to deliver a decent standard of living to the European society. This new endeavour gives rise to a number of questions, not least regarding how the notion of a standard of living that is compatible with a life in dignity ought to be interpreted and what the obligations of Member States are in this quest. The aim of this contribution is precisely to shed some light on these questions. To this end, the article looks into how different (quasi)judicial bodies have interpreted fundamental rights that entitle individuals to minimum subsistence resources that are deemed to achieve a standard of living that is compatible with the right to human dignity. In particular, it analyses how the ECJ, the ECtHR and the ECSR have interpreted (minimum) living standards through different fundamental rights. It then suggests a number of ‘learning points’ for the ECJ to draw from the experience of the other two bodies and emphasizes the need for building solid bridges between the three.
{"title":"Bringing the EU up to speed in the protection of living standards through fundamental social rights: Drawing positive lessons from the experience of the Council of Europe","authors":"A. Aranguiz","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211021765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211021765","url":null,"abstract":"Ever since the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EU seems committed to explore and expand its social dimension to deliver a decent standard of living to the European society. This new endeavour gives rise to a number of questions, not least regarding how the notion of a standard of living that is compatible with a life in dignity ought to be interpreted and what the obligations of Member States are in this quest. The aim of this contribution is precisely to shed some light on these questions. To this end, the article looks into how different (quasi)judicial bodies have interpreted fundamental rights that entitle individuals to minimum subsistence resources that are deemed to achieve a standard of living that is compatible with the right to human dignity. In particular, it analyses how the ECJ, the ECtHR and the ECSR have interpreted (minimum) living standards through different fundamental rights. It then suggests a number of ‘learning points’ for the ECJ to draw from the experience of the other two bodies and emphasizes the need for building solid bridges between the three.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"601 - 625"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44428657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-04DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211034103
Zhen Chen
This article compares Owen v. Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v. British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of ‘damage’, the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to reach a conclusion as to which law is better between the Rome II Regulation and the Chinese Conflicts Act, but rather highlights a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.
{"title":"Tort conflicts rules in cross-border multi-party litigation: Which law has a closer or the closest connection?","authors":"Zhen Chen","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211034103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211034103","url":null,"abstract":"This article compares Owen v. Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v. British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of ‘damage’, the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to reach a conclusion as to which law is better between the Rome II Regulation and the Chinese Conflicts Act, but rather highlights a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"626 - 647"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1023263X211034103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46111748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211039980
S. Rodin
At first glance, the CJEU does not appear to make much use of history in its daily work. History is debated neither in the courtroom or chambers, and even less so in the cabinets or corridors. When searched in Eur-lex, word ‘history’ yields 245 hits altogether in judgments of the CJEU (Court and Tribunal combined), mostly in the context of common language such as ‘history of safe food use’, ‘long-standing psychological history’, ‘history of illness’, etc. Even the usual suspect ‘legislative history’ appears in no more than 70 judgments, approximately six per year since 2017. Looking beyond the text, history has a broader meaning. Cambridge Online Dictionary defines history as ‘(the study of or a record of) past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject’. While the Court certainly does not study history as such, its case law, collected and accessible, provides for a record of past events that come to be considered together from time to time when the Court decides on cases. In this broader sense, when relying on its case law ( jurisprudence constante, as it is often called), the Court does consider the record of past events. The history under its consideration is a history of facts and law as interpreted and applied by the Court. I will first suggest that law, just like history, requires a concept of linear time, which is generally taken for granted. I will proceed by explaining how temporal dimension matters for legal interpretation and propose that, while the concept of law itself requires temporal linearity, legal interpretation can be time-independent. History is a way in which we construct reality. It is often represented as an arrow of time which irreversibly flows from earlier to later. This is dictated by entropy, and from there on, by causality. Entropy, that is, the second law of thermodynamics, teaches us that all possible natural processes are irreversible. Similarly, causality generates an appearance of one phenomenon necessarily flowing from another, creating what Robert R. Merton called a functional necessity.
乍一看，欧洲人权委员会在日常工作中似乎并没有过多地利用历史。历史辩论既不是在法庭上，也不是在内庭上，更不是在内阁或走廊上。在欧洲法院(法院和审裁处合并)的判词中，“历史”一词在欧洲法院的判决中总共有245个搜索结果，主要是在通用语言的背景下，如“安全食品使用史”、“长期心理史”、“病史”等。即使是通常可疑的“立法史”出现在不超过70个判决中，自2017年以来大约每年6个。超越文本，历史具有更广泛的意义。剑桥在线词典将历史定义为“对过去事件的研究或记录，尤指某一特定时期、国家或主题的事件”。虽然最高法院当然不研究历史本身，但其收集和可查阅的判例法提供了对过去事件的记录，在最高法院对案件作出裁决时，这些事件有时会被一并考虑。在这个更广泛的意义上，当依靠判例法(通常被称为判例法)时，最高法院确实会考虑过去事件的记录。其审议的历史是由法院解释和适用的事实和法律的历史。我首先提出，法律，就像历史一样，需要线性时间的概念，这通常被认为是理所当然的。我将继续解释时间维度对法律解释的重要性，并提出，虽然法律概念本身需要时间线性，但法律解释可以是时间独立的。历史是我们构建现实的一种方式。它经常被描绘成时间之箭，不可逆转地从早到晚。这是由熵决定的，从那以后，由因果关系决定。熵，即热力学第二定律，告诉我们所有可能的自然过程都是不可逆的。同样，因果关系产生了一种现象必然从另一种现象流出的表象，创造了罗伯特·r·默顿(Robert R. Merton)所说的功能必然性。
{"title":"Time, history and legal interpretation","authors":"S. Rodin","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211039980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211039980","url":null,"abstract":"At first glance, the CJEU does not appear to make much use of history in its daily work. History is debated neither in the courtroom or chambers, and even less so in the cabinets or corridors. When searched in Eur-lex, word ‘history’ yields 245 hits altogether in judgments of the CJEU (Court and Tribunal combined), mostly in the context of common language such as ‘history of safe food use’, ‘long-standing psychological history’, ‘history of illness’, etc. Even the usual suspect ‘legislative history’ appears in no more than 70 judgments, approximately six per year since 2017. Looking beyond the text, history has a broader meaning. Cambridge Online Dictionary defines history as ‘(the study of or a record of) past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject’. While the Court certainly does not study history as such, its case law, collected and accessible, provides for a record of past events that come to be considered together from time to time when the Court decides on cases. In this broader sense, when relying on its case law ( jurisprudence constante, as it is often called), the Court does consider the record of past events. The history under its consideration is a history of facts and law as interpreted and applied by the Court. I will first suggest that law, just like history, requires a concept of linear time, which is generally taken for granted. I will proceed by explaining how temporal dimension matters for legal interpretation and propose that, while the concept of law itself requires temporal linearity, legal interpretation can be time-independent. History is a way in which we construct reality. It is often represented as an arrow of time which irreversibly flows from earlier to later. This is dictated by entropy, and from there on, by causality. Entropy, that is, the second law of thermodynamics, teaches us that all possible natural processes are irreversible. Similarly, causality generates an appearance of one phenomenon necessarily flowing from another, creating what Robert R. Merton called a functional necessity.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"433 - 436"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43761857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211024990
Johannes Graf von Luckner
As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This could be seen particularly well in a peculiar practice that has largely gone unnoticed in the public, namely a series of opt-in decisions that the UK took prior to Brexit but after the Brexit referendum. This contribution raises the question of whether the UK used the pre-Brexit period as a type of ‘last call’, trying to get everything it could of its membership before it ended. To do so, it studies five opt-in decisions, examining their subject matter, the effects of the opt-ins and the outcome of the Brexit negotiations in order to understand the UK’s reasons for integrating further into the EU before withdrawing from it. Uncovering various political and practical motivations, it comes to the conclusion that the initial impression of a ‘last call behaviour’ is not justified.
{"title":"A Brexit last call: The strange practice of pre-Brexit opt-ins","authors":"Johannes Graf von Luckner","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211024990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211024990","url":null,"abstract":"As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This could be seen particularly well in a peculiar practice that has largely gone unnoticed in the public, namely a series of opt-in decisions that the UK took prior to Brexit but after the Brexit referendum. This contribution raises the question of whether the UK used the pre-Brexit period as a type of ‘last call’, trying to get everything it could of its membership before it ended. To do so, it studies five opt-in decisions, examining their subject matter, the effects of the opt-ins and the outcome of the Brexit negotiations in order to understand the UK’s reasons for integrating further into the EU before withdrawing from it. Uncovering various political and practical motivations, it comes to the conclusion that the initial impression of a ‘last call behaviour’ is not justified.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"556 - 572"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45982200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-26DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211010361
Alessandro Rosanò
According to some recent data, cooperation between cross-border regions may prove key to support the economic development not only of those regions, but also of the European Union as a whole. However, the very existence of the border may have a negative impact in that regard. The purpose of this article is to provide an analysis of the European Commission’s proposal of a regulation on the mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in the cross-border context. This instrument, should it come into force, may play a decisive role in promoting the economic development of those areas and the Union, but, most importantly, may be regarded as a way to introduce a cryptofederal element to the European integration process.
{"title":"Perspectives of strengthened cooperation between cross-border regions: The European Commission’s proposal of a regulation on the mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in the cross-border context","authors":"Alessandro Rosanò","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211010361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211010361","url":null,"abstract":"According to some recent data, cooperation between cross-border regions may prove key to support the economic development not only of those regions, but also of the European Union as a whole. However, the very existence of the border may have a negative impact in that regard. The purpose of this article is to provide an analysis of the European Commission’s proposal of a regulation on the mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in the cross-border context. This instrument, should it come into force, may play a decisive role in promoting the economic development of those areas and the Union, but, most importantly, may be regarded as a way to introduce a cryptofederal element to the European integration process.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"437 - 451"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1023263X211010361","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43708774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-19DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211028423
C. Jacqueson
The boundaries of financial solidarity between the Member States have long been a hotly debated issue. With Jobcentre Krefeld, the Court puts an end to the saga of the rights of children of former workers and their primary carer. It firmly anchors its ruling in the free movement of workers and distinguishes the case from the Dano and Alimanovic cases.
{"title":"A resisting enclave of social rights – protecting the children of former workers: C-181/19 Jobcenter Krefeld – Widerspruchsstelle v JD","authors":"C. Jacqueson","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211028423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211028423","url":null,"abstract":"The boundaries of financial solidarity between the Member States have long been a hotly debated issue. With Jobcentre Krefeld, the Court puts an end to the saga of the rights of children of former workers and their primary carer. It firmly anchors its ruling in the free movement of workers and distinguishes the case from the Dano and Alimanovic cases.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"731 - 738"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1023263X211028423","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47821919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：