Abstract
This chapter argues that European or national legislation seeking to regulate, steer or limit migration out of itself gives rise to risks. It is difficult to imagine an area of law, which is more susceptible to political interventions and heated public debates than the regulation of immigration. On the national level, migration and EU migration rules are perceived as a risk to welfare, social cohesion and national sovereignty. The binding character of EU legislation indeed limits the discretion of Member States significantly. This leads to a continuous struggle between Member States and the EU about the scope of application, effectiveness, and limits of EU migration rules on the national level. In turn, this constellation gives rise to three categories of risks: First, abstract risks such as the lack of legal certainty and undermining of objective and purpose of legislation. Second, institutional risks such as preventing the achievement of political promises or destabilizing national systems of governance. Third and final, individual risks to individual immigrants who might suffer from denial of rights, insecurity and marginalization as an effect of the struggle between the EU and its Member States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, for example, the election programme of the Dutch right wing populist party PVV, the party of Geert Wilders, categorically wanting to ban immigration from ‘all Islam countries’, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) 2012, pp. 34–37.
- 2.
Dauvergne (2004), pp. 288–290.
- 3.
See the overview of the EU acquis on free movement and migration regulation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/justice_freedom_security.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED%3D23,SUM_2_CODED%3D2301&obsolete=false, accessed 21 April 2015.
- 4.
Arts. 45, 49, 56 TFEU.
- 5.
For example, in Regulation (EU) 492/2011 of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, codifying Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and its successive modifications (Council Regulations 312/76 and 2434/92, and Article 38(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC).
- 6.
Arts. 20, 21, 22 TFEU, and Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
- 7.
See for legislation, http://europeanmigrationlaw.eu/en, accessed 21 April 2015.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
For example, Arts. 6, 7, 45 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C83/02).
- 10.
See for more information on this issue, de Witte (2011), pp. 323–361.
- 11.
See Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-01839 for Directive 2003/86; or for Directive 2004/38 Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] ECR I-06241.
- 12.
See for example Shaw (2011), pp. 575–609.
- 13.
See the publication OECD 2014 titled ‘Is migration good for the economy?’ on this matter, available at http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf, accessed 13.08.2015.
- 14.
Groenendijk (2004), pp. 111–126.
- 15.
Lübbe-Wolff (2007), p. 121.
- 16.
See the elaborate study Carrera and Faure (2011), available at http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2011/07/Integration%20as%20a%20Two-way%20Process.pdf, accessed 13.08.2015.
- 17.
de Vries (2014), pp. 417–420.
- 18.
Groenendijk (2004), pp. 111–114.
- 19.
See arguments of the Dutch governments as reported by AG Kokott in the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case C-153/14 Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K and A, not yet reported.
- 20.
Common Basic Principles of Immigration Integration, Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions, 19 November 2004.
- 21.
See Jesse (2011), p. 173.
- 22.
Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, not yet reported.
- 23.
Jesse (2014), pp. 88–89.
- 24.
See de Witte (2011), pp. 323–361.
- 25.
de Vries (2014), pp. 417–418.
- 26.
See on this Jesse (2011), pp. 172–178.
- 27.
Case C-138/13 Dogan, not yet reported.
- 28.
For example art. 7(2) Directive 2003/86/EC, Arts. 5(2), 15(3) Directive 2003/109/EC.
- 29.
Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-01839.
- 30.
Case C-571/10 Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others [2006] ECR I-6057.
- 31.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case C-153/14 Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K and A, not yet reported.
- 32.
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case C-138/13 Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany.
- 33.
Confirmation of these arguments was recently provided in Case C-153/14 K and A, not yet reported.
- 34.
Klaassen and Lodder (2014), pp. 34–39.
- 35.
Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-01839.
- 36.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) [2011] ECR I-01177.
- 37.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) [2011] ECR I-01177.
- 38.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci [2011] ECR I-11315; Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy [2011] ECR I-03375.
- 39.
See, for example, the plan of British PM David Cameron to cut access to social welfare for EU citizens, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/david-cameron-european-union-immigration, accessed 21 April 2015.
- 40.
See the Dutch government’s initiative to amend Directive 2003/86/EC to allow for stricter policies, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/regering/regeerakkoord/immigratie-integratie-en-asiel, accessed 21 April 2015. This initiative was not successful.
- 41.
See the ideas of Germany’s Minister of the Interior, http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-04/sicherheit-passkontrolle-germanwings, accessed 21 April 2015.
- 42.
See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (COM/2006/0048 final); for the current restrictions for Croatian workers, see http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=466&langId=en, accessed 21 April 2015.
- 43.
See Laeken and Seville Council Conclusions 2001 and 2002; (Peers 2006, p. 6); also Conclusions of Laeken European Council, Presidency conclusions – Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001. SN 300/1/01 REV 1. 8. EN. 24.
- 44.
See for an overview of these measures ‘fighting’ illegal immigration, Peers (2006), pp. 10–12.
- 45.
See Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals. OJ L 149, 2.6.2001.
- 46.
See Art. 63 TEC, since ToL ordinary legislative procedure.
- 47.
Case C-540/03 European Parliament v Council.
- 48.
Recital 4 Directive 2003/86/EC.
- 49.
See Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken [2010] ECR I-01839; or Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] ECR I-06241.
- 50.
See Shaw (2011), pp. 575–609.
- 51.
See for the problem of David Cameron, who pledged to bring net immigration in the UK below 100.000 per year during his term, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11436403/David-Cameron-immigration-pledge-in-tatters-as-net-immigration-stands-at-298000.html, accessed 22 April 2015.
References
Carrera S, Faure A (2011) Integration as a two-way process in the EU. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels
Dauvergne C (2004) Sovereignty, migration and the rule of law in global times. Mod Law Rev 67(4):588–615
de Vries K (2014) Vreemde Verwanten: Inburgering in het buitenland en het recht op gezinsleven. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten 39(4):417–436
de Witte B (2011) Direct effect, primacy, and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, de Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 323–361
Groenendijk K (2004) Legal concepts of integration in EU migration law. Eur J Migr Law 6(2):111–126
Jesse M (2011) The value of integration in European law: the implications of the Förster case on legal assessment of integration conditions for third-country nationals. Eur Law J 17(2):172–190
Jesse M (2014) The selection of migrants through law - a closer look at regulation governing family reunification. In: Anthias F, Pajnik M (eds) Contesting integration, engendering migration. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, pp 86–101
Klaassen M, Lodder G (2014) EU-recht en nationale ontwikkelingen – Kroniek gezinshereniging. Asiel en Migrantenrecht: 34–43
Lübbe-Wolff G (2007) Homogenes Volk - Über Homogenitätspostulate und Integration. Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik 27(4):121–127
Peers S (2006) EU justice and home affairs law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shaw J (2011) Citizenship: contrasting dynamics at the interface of integration and constitutionalism. In: Craig P, de Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 575–609
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jesse, M. (2016). Legal Risks from, to, and within EU Migration Law: An Inventory. In: Mišćenić, E., Raccah, A. (eds) Legal Risks in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28595-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28596-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)