The Coherence of EU Free Movement Law: Constitutional Responsibility and the Court of Justice

301 Pages·2013·1.667 MB·English

by  Niamh Nic Shuibhne

OXFORD STUDIES IN EUROPEAN LAW
SeriesEditors
PAULCRAIG
ProfessorofEnglishLawatStJohn’sCollege,Oxford
GRÁINNEDEBÚRCA
ProfessorofLawatNewYorkUniversitySchoolofLaw
The Coherence of EU Free Movement Law
Constitutional Responsibility and the Court of Justice
OXFORD STUDIES IN EUROPEAN LAW
SeriesEditors:PaulCraig,ProfessorofEnglishLawatStJohn’sCollegeOxford
andGráinnedeBúrca,ProfessorofLawatNewYorkUniversitySchoolofLaw
TheaimofthisseriesistopublishimportantandoriginalresearchonEUlaw.
Thefocusisonscholarlymonographs,withaparticularemphasisonthosewhich
areinterdisciplinary innature. Editedcollections ofessayswillalso beincluded
wheretheyareappropriate.Theseriesiswideinscopeandaimstocoverstudies
of particular areas of substantive and of institutional law, historical works,
theoretical studies, and analyses of current debates, as well as questions of
perennial interest such as the relationship between national and EU law and
the novel forms of governance emerging in and beyond Europe. The fact that
manyoftheworksareinterdisciplinarywillmaketheseriesofinteresttoallthose
concernedwiththegovernanceandoperationoftheEU.
other titles in this series
EuropeanLawandNewHealth GoverningSocialInclusion
Technologies EuropeanizationthroughPolicy
EditedbyMarkLFlear,Anne-Maree Coordination
Farrell,TamaraKHervey,andThérèse KennethAArmstrong
Murphy
JudicialControlintheEuropeanUnion
TheLegalEffectofEUAgreements ReformingJurisdictioninthe
MarioMendez IntergovernmentalPillars
AliciaHinarejos
TheEnforcementofEULaw
TheRoleoftheEuropeanCommission EUCounter-TerroristPoliciesand
StineAndersen FundamentalRights
TheCaseofIndividualSanctions
EuropeanAgencies
ChristinaEckes
LawandPracticesofAccountability
MadalinaBusuioc FromDualtoCooperativeFederalism
TheChangingStructureofEuropeanLaw
TheFoundationsofEuropeanUnion
RobertSchütze
CompetitionLaw
TheObjectiveandPrinciplesof ConflictsofRightsintheEuropeanUnion
Article102 ATheoryofSupranationalAdjudication
RenatoNazzini AidaTorresPérez
TheEmergenceofEUContractLaw JudicialDeliberations
ExploringEuropeanization AComparativeAnalysisofTransparency
LucindaMiller andLegitimacy
MitcheldeS-O-l’ELasser
ParticipationinEURule-making
ARights-BasedApproach RacismandEqualityintheEuropeanUnion
JoanaMendes MarkBell
RegulatingCartelsinEurope ConstitutionalPrinciplesofEUExternal
SecondEdition Relations
ChristopherHarding,JulianJoshua GeertDeBaere
ReligionandthePublicOrderofthe CivilProcedureandEULaw
EuropeanUnion APolicyAreaUncovered
RonanMcCrea EvaStorskrubb
The Coherence of EU
Free Movement Law
Constitutional Responsibility and the Court of Justice
NIAMH NIC SHUIBHNE
ProfessorofEuropeanUnionLaw,
UniversityofEdinburgh
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©N.NicShuibhne2013
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2013
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
CrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedunderClassLicence
NumberC01P0000148withthepermissionofOPSI
andtheQueen’sPrinterforScotland
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013937976
ISBN 978–0–19–959295–1
PrintedinGreatBritainby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
’
Series Editors Preface
Niamh Nic Shuibhne has tackled an important issue that arises frequently within
discourse concerning free movement law, which is the coherence of the complex
caselawdevelopedbytheECJsincetheinceptionoftheEEC.
ThestudyisgroundedontheassumptionthattheECJoperatesinthemodeofa
constitutionalcourtandhastheresponsibilitiesassociatedwithsuchjudicialorgans.
Coherenceisnotfelttodemandthatdifferentsectorsmustbetreatedinexactlythe
samelegalmanner,butratherthatdifferencesarejustifiedbyprincipleddistinctions
asbetweentheapplicationoffreemovementprinciplesindifferentareas.NiamhNic
Shuibhne contends that four main factors have distorted the meaning of free
movementcaselaw,andledtofragmentationofthecaselaw,irrespectiveofwhether
thesefactors reflectgoodimpulsesornot.Theyaretheprotection offundamental
rights,theproliferation ofprinciples,thecontestedpurposeoftheinternalmarket
and free movement, and the structure of the Court and its decision-making pro-
cesses.TheseproblemsarefelttobeexacerbatedbytheCourt’sreluctancetoengage
withorreverseitspreviousdecisions,evenwhereitseemstobedepartingfromthem.
Thediscussionisorganisedthematically,focusingontheprinciplesthatdrivethe
developingcaselaw.Itisframedsoastoconsiderinturnthenegativeandpositive
scopeoffreemovementlaw.Theformerconnotestheprinciplesthatareappliedin
free movement law to exclude something/someone from the scope of the Treaty,
therebyrenderingrecoursetoissuesofjustificationandproportionalityredundant.
Thisincludesissuessuchasthehorizontalreachoffreemovementprovisions,and
the status of the rule that wholly internal situations are not covered by free
movement law. The latter, the positive scope of free movement law, is concerned
withtheprinciplesthatdeterminetheouterreachofthelegalrulesinthisarea.The
coverage focuses on the utility of the division between directly and indirectly
discriminatoryrestrictions,andalsothemuchdiscussedissueconcerningtheextent
towhichEUlawshouldcovernon-discriminatorymeasures.
The valuable discussion in this monograph also sheds important light on other
facetsoffreemovementlaw,whichshapeitsapplicationbytheEUcourts.Niamh
NicShuibhnerevealsthetensionsthatplayoutinthelawinthisarea.Thus,onthe
onehand,theTreatyexpressesjustificationargumentsasderogationsfromprimary
rights, with the consequence that exceptions to those rights must be narrowly
construed. On the other hand, it is clear that the arena within which justification
argumentsareairedhasinrealitybecomehighlysignificantinitsownright,more
especially as the scope application of free movement has expanded. This leads, as
the author rightly notes, to a situation in which justification is in reality about
balancingandweighing,notderogating.
This book willbe ofinterest toallthose concerned with free movement inEU
law. It has moreover broader significance for the way in which we conceptualize
coherenceandtheroleofcourtsinachievingthiswithintheEU.
PaulCraigandGráinnedeBúrca
Preface
Myresearchinterestinthepurpose,functions,andoutputsofcourtshastwomain
dimensions.First,IwouldpointtothelegacyofJohnMitchell,thepioneerofEU
studies at Edinburgh University and indeed well beyond, who developed a still-
compelling rationale for the role of courts in democratic societies in his inaugural
lecture for the Salvesen Chair of European Institutions, delivered in November
1968.ProfessorMitchellwrotethat‘[g]overnmentsandgovernmentalbodieshave
as many reasons for conniving among themselves as they have for opposing each
other and,inthe evolution ofgovernment, it is importantthat, withinacceptable
limits,individualsshouldbeabletoparticipatethroughtheneutralmechanismsof
courts not merely maintaining the framework of rules, but also advancing its
construction’. He also observed that ‘there is a problem of discipline in govern-
ment’,andarguedthatinwhathecalleda‘processofrethinking...thereisaplace
for Universities, no matter what difficulties the tinge of politics may produce’.
Centraltothatissue,hewrote,istheplaceoflawandcourtsinsociety.
The second dimension is a more personal response, which has three main
elements: the value of fairness, the importance of process, and both the merits
andchallengesofinterpretation.Thereisalsoamoresubjectivedegreeoffaithand
idealism,capturedbythewordsofAtticusFinchinToKillaMockingbird:‘[t]here
is one human institution that makes pauper the equal of Rockefeller, the stupid
man the equal of an Einstein and the ignorant man the equal of any college
president. That institution...is a court. Our courts have their faults, as does any
human institution, but...our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all
men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our
courts....That is no ideal to me. It is a living, working reality’. Courts do not
alwaysgetitright;andwhetherajudgmentis‘right’ornotandonwhatbasisare
deeply contested questions anyway. But observing the way in which politics are
actuallypractised, andregrettinginparticular theapparently diminishingvalue of
statesmanship,myfaithincourtsasinstitutionsthathavethepotentialtodelivera
deeper degree of fairness has become, if anything, reinforced. Of course, we also
tendtoquestiontheinstitutionsinwhichwehavefaith—butnotfromexistential
suspicion; instead, from the hope that they can simply be stronger and do even
better.
In her introduction to The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of
Science (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007), Natalie Angier drew from an inter-
viewwithProfessorSusanHockfield,thecurrentPresidentofMIT,onthepainful
process of writing. ‘“It’s worse than squaring a circle”, she said. “It’s squaring a
sphere”.’ That description is difficult to better and books are the result of a
particularlylongprocess.Itisinmanyrespectsalonelyonebutinthebestrespects
it is not. I had the opportunity to deliver my own inaugural lecture at Edinburgh
Preface vii
University on 9 November 2012 and to acknowledge there my appreciation of,
first, my colleagues, from both within and beyond Edinburgh. I am grateful, in
particular,forthevaluedinsightsandcommentsreceivedonvariousdraftsofthese
chapters from Tony Arnull, Thomas Horsley, Panos Koutrakos, Marsela Maci,
Síofra O’Leary, Eleanor Sharpston, Jukka Snell, Isabelle van Damme, and Steve
Weatherill;andforongoingdiscussionofthemainthemes,IamgratefultoDavid
Edward. Thanks to my Edinburgh colleagues Alan Boyle and James Harrison for
discussionofthe International Law Commission; toMiroslavaHulvanová forher
careful assistance in finalizing the manuscript; to the team at OUP, especially to
Alex Flach, Natasha Flemming, and Cheryl Prophett; and to Graeme Laurie.
Second, I was also able to acknowledge at the lecture the support I have received
in many ways over many years from friends scattered all over the place. Finally,
I thanked the family I come from; but also, two other families that I am lucky
enough to have, especially as someone who left where she came from: the family
memberswhobecamemyfriends,andthefriendswhobecamemyfamily.
NNS
28February2013
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
TableofCases xii
TableofLegislation xxv
ListofAbbreviations xxvii
1. Introduction:TheCourtofJustice,ConstitutionalResponsibility,
andtheScopeofEUFreeMovementLaw 1
1. Introduction 1
2. TheCourtofJusticeandconstitutionalresponsibility 8
(a) Theresponsibilitiesofconstitutionalcourts 8
(b) ConstitutionalresponsibilityandtheCourtofJustice 12
(i) ThenatureoftheEUlegalorder 13
(ii) Normativeperspectives 15
(iii) Functionalconstitutionalism 16
3. Thesignificanceandscopeoffreemovementlaw 21
(a) Significance:whyfreemovementlaw? 21
(b) Stages:restriction,justification,andproportionality 24
(c) Scope:generalapproachandchaptermap 29
2. Coherence,Fragmentation,andtheFreeMovementCaseLaw 31
1. Introduction 31
2. Coherenceandfragmentation 31
(a) Fromconvergencetocoherence 32
(b) Themeaning—andlimits—ofcoherenceandfragmentation 36
3. KeydriversoffragmentationinEUfreemovementcaselaw 41
(a) Proliferation 41
(b) Themultiple—andunsettled—objectivesoftheinternalmarket 43
(c) Realizingtheprotectionoffundamentalrights 50
(d) ThestructureoftheCourt 54
4. Conclusion 62
3. TheNegativeScopeofFreeMovementLaw:‘Who-Based’Exclusions 63
1. Introduction 63
2. DefinitionalexclusionfromthescopeoftheTreaty 64
(a) Materialscope 64
(b) Personalscope:thebasicframework 66
(c) Personalscope:thesubstantivedimension 71
(d) Isthereahierarchyofrightsinfreemovementlaw? 74
(i) Thecitizen-worker 74
(ii) Thehuman(rights)dimension 81
(e) DefinitionalexclusionfromthescopeoftheTreaty:
interimconclusions 84