Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Selection and Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Precedents and Judicial Politics in EU Immigration Law

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((EAGOV))

  • 284 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the study’s data collection and the choices that grounded the selection of these data. A first section outlines why family reunification immigration was chosen as the case study. The section presents the two main analytical considerations that guide this choice relating, first, to the case law’s political sensitivity and, second, the long-term track record of CJEU jurisprudence in this field. A second section presents the different legal bases that ground the Court’s case law in this area, considers some of the characteristics of the case law record as a whole and presents some preliminary observations on ‘self-citation practices’, that is, observations of when the Court cites its own prior rulings.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In line with the opt-out rules available to them, the UK, Ireland and Denmark do not participate in the Directive.

  2. 2.

    In line with the longitudinal set-up of the dataset, this selection criterion was in some cases applied to persons that were at the time of the proceedings non-EU nationals, but that would currently no longer qualify as such as a result of the Union’s successive enlargement waves. This was the case in Deak (C-94/84) involving a Hungarian national, Gül (C-131/85) on the rights of a Cypriot national and Ruhr (C-189/00) which concerned a Polish national. See on the sometimes ambivalent effects of EU accession rounds from the perspective of distinguishing between EU and third-country nationals Groenendijk (2009) and Guild (2009).

  3. 3.

    With regard to the case law arising on the basis of infringement actions, the second selection criterion (involving at least one third-country national) was applied by including only those infringement proceedings that dealt either with the provisions of the Family Reunification Directive (of which the scope is restricted to third-country nationals), or related specifically to the incorrect application of free movement law provisions in situations involving third-country nationals.

References

Primary Sources

    EU Law

    • Council Directive 2001/55/EC on Minimum Standards for giving Temporary Protection in the Event of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons and on Measures promoting a Balance of Efforts between Member States in receiving such Persons and bearing the Consequences thereof [2001] O.J. L 212/12.

      Google Scholar 

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

      Google Scholar 

    • Council Directive 2003/109/EC Concerning the Status of Third-Country Nationals Who are Long-term Residents [2003] O.J. L 16/44.

      Google Scholar 

    • Council Directive 2009/50/EC the Conditions of Entry and Residence of Third-country Nationals for the Purposes of Highly Qualified Employment [2009] O.J. L 155/17.

      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 

    • Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Common Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals [2008] O.J. L 348/98.

      Google Scholar 

    • Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Standards for the Qualification of Third-country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted [2011] O.J. L 337/9.

      Google Scholar 

    • Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection [2013] O.J. L 180/96.

      Google Scholar 

    • Regulation (EEC) No 15/61 of the Council on Initial Measures to Bring About Free Movement of Workers within the Community [1961] O.J. 57/1073.

      Google Scholar 

    • Regulation (EEC) No 38/64 of the Council on the Freedom of Movement for Workers within the Community [1964] O.J. 64/965.

      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 

    • Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in one of the Member States by a Third-country National or a Stateless Person [2013] O.J. L 180/31.

      Google Scholar 

    EU Documents

    • Commission Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive 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 (2001) 257 (final).

      Google Scholar 

    • Commission Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive 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 (2003) 199 (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-94/84 Office national de l’emploi v Joszef Deak [1985] ECR 1873.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-131/85 Emir Gül v Regierungspräsident Düsseldorf [1986] ECR 1573.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691.

      Google Scholar 

    • Case C-189/00 Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [2001] ECR I-8225.

      Google Scholar 

    Other Sources

    Literature

    • Arnull, A. (1993). Owning up to Fallibility: Precedent and the Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review, 30(2), 247–266.

      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 

    • Block, L. (2015). Regulating Membership: Explaining Restriction and Stratification of Family Migration in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 36(11), 1433–1452.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Carens, J. (2003). Who Should Get in? The Ethics of Immigration Admissions. Ethics & International Affairs, 17(1), 95–110.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Carruba, C. (2005). Courts and Compliance in International Regulatory Regimes. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 669–689.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Carruba, J., Gabel, M., & Hankla, C. (2012). Understanding the Role of the European Court of Justice in European Integration. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 214–223.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Cholewinski, R. (2002). Family Reunification and Conditions Placed on Family Members: Dismantling a Fundamental Human Right. European Journal of Migration and Law, 4(3), 271–290.

      Google Scholar 

    • Costello, C. (2014). Article 33—Family and Professional Life. In S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner, & A. Ward (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (pp. 891–925). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

      Google Scholar 

    • Eisele, K. (2014). The External Dimension of the EU’s Migration Policy. Different Legal Positions of Third-Country Nationals in the EU: A Comparative Perspective. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

      Book  Google Scholar 

    • Fetzer, J. (2012). Public Opinion and Populism. In M. Rosenblum & D. Tichenor (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Politics of International Migration (pp. 301–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Freeman, P., Hansen, R., & Leal, D. (2013). Immigration and Public Opinion in Liberal Democracies. New York: Routledge.

      Google Scholar 

    • Garrett, G. (1992). International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community’s Internal Market. International Organization, 46(2), 533–560.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., & Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 149–176.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Geddes, A. (2003). The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London: SAGE Publications.

      Book  Google Scholar 

    • George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Groenendijk, K. (2009). Forty Years of Free Movement of Workers: Has It Been A Success and Why? In P. Minderhoud & N. Trimikliniotis (Eds.), Rethinking the Free Movement of Workers: The European Challenges Ahead (pp. 11–23). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

      Google Scholar 

    • Guild, E. (2009). Free Movement of Workers: From Third Country National to Citizen of the Union. In P. Minderhoud & N. Trimikliniotis (Eds.), Rethinking the Free Movement of Workers: The European Challenges Ahead (pp. 25–38). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

      Google Scholar 

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

      Google Scholar 

    • Jacob, M. (2014). Precedents and Case-based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice: Unfinished Business. New York: Cambridge University Press.

      Book  Google Scholar 

    • Joppke, C. (1998a). Immigration Challenges the Nation-State. In C. Joppke (Ed.), Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 5–48). New York: Oxford University Press.

      Chapter  Google Scholar 

    • Joppke, C. (1998b). Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266–293.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Joppke, C. (1999). Immigration and the Nation-State. The United States, Germany and Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Book  Google Scholar 

    • Lahav, G. (1997). International Versus National Constraints in Family-Reunification Migration Policy. Global Governance, 3(3), 349–372.

      Google Scholar 

    • Levy, J. (2008). Case Studies: Types, Designs and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Messina, A. (2007). The Logics and Politics of Post-WWII Immigration to Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Book  Google Scholar 

    • Peers, S. (2011). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Schweitzer, R. (2015). A Stratified Right to Family Life? On the Logic (s) and Legitimacy of Granting Differential Access to Family Reunification for Third-Country Nationals Living within the EU. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(13), 2130–2148.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Shaw, J. (2011). Concluding Thoughts—Rottmann in Context. In J. Shaw (Ed.), Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law? EUI Working Paper, RSCAS, 2011/62. Florence: European University Institute.

      Google Scholar 

    • Spaventa, E. (2008). Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects. Common Market Law Review, 45, 13–45.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stalford, H. (2012). Children and the European Union: Rights, Welfare and Accountability. London: Hart Publishing.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stalford, H. (2015). The CRC in Litigation Under EU Law. In T. Liefaard & J. Doek (Eds.), Litigating the Rights of the Child: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Domestic and International Jurisprudence (pp. 211–230). Dordrecht: Springer.

      Google Scholar 

    • Staver, A. (2013). Free Movement and the Fragmentation of Family Reunification Rights. European Journal of Migration and Law, 15, 69–89.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Stone Sweet, A. (2004). The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Book  Google Scholar 

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

      Google Scholar 

    • Tomkin, J. (2009). The Worker, The Citizen, Their Families and the Court of Justice: Tales of Free Movement from Luxembourg. In P. Minderhoud & N. Trimikliniotis (Eds.), Rethinking the Free Movement of Workers: The European Challenges Ahead (pp. 39–59). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

      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 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 

    • Walter, A. (2008). Reverse Discrimination and Family Reunification. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

      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). Case Selection and Data. 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_4

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation