Free Movement for Workers or Citizens? Reverse Discrimination in European Family Reunification Policies

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-83
Author(s):  
Hugo Balnaves

Danish legislation has made it increasingly difficult for Danish citizens who have not exercised their free movement (static EU citizens) to have their third country national (TCN) family member(s) reside with them in Denmark under family reunification. On the other hand, EU citizens (mobile EU citizens) who have exercised their free movement and reside in Denmark with their TCN family member(s), have access to far more generous EU family reunification legislation. This article explores the extent to which reverse discrimination effects Danish citizens compared to mobile EU compatriots living in Denmark and how this interacts with EU citizenship rights such as free movement and the fundamental right to family life.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Staver

Abstract Family reunification regulations in the EU are increasingly complex, and they vary for different groups of sponsors. This paper documents the existence of four parallel legal regimes for family reunification — national rules for citizens who do not move, EU rules for citizens who move within Europe, the Family Reunification Directive for third-country nationals in the EU, and since 2011, family reunification rights based on EU citizenship status. This paper asks how and why family reunification rules are being thus fragmented, and in particular why so-called ‘reverse discrimination’, where citizens are disadvantaged vis-à-vis non-citizens, is persisting and deepening. It draws on tools from political science, namely historical institutionalism and studies of policy transfer and Europeanization, to showcase the different logics that underlie these puzzling developments.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-379 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractIn the Gouvernement de la Communauté française and Gouvernement wallon case, the Court of Justice was mainly faced with the question of the applicability of the Community law provisions governing free movement of persons in "internal situations" i.e., situations in which EU citizens who are nationals of the host Member States, may not invoke the protection of Community law due to the lack of a cross-border element. The Court resists the call of its AG, but its reply does not give a definitive answer to the situation of those nationals who have exercised, to some extent, their right to free movement. In the Eind case, the Court was confronted with the question whether the third country family member of a national of the host Member State, who has no right of residence in that State, nevertheless enjoys a right of family reunification there upon the return of that national from another Member State where he exercised his right to free movement. The Court answers that question positively, but its legal reasoning is questionable.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Lawson

You may not have noticed, but 2006 was the European Year of Workers' Mobility. The symbolism was prompted by concerns that a genuine European ‘mobility culture’ still does not exist. As the Commission has observed, rates of mobility remain extremely low despite initiatives to promote the free movement of workers: ‘Many obstacles of a legal or administrative nature, but also of a linguistic or socio-cultural nature, continue to hamper workers’ freedom of movement and to discourage them from taking advantage of the opportunities for mobility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fulvia Staiano

Abstract Transnational mothering presents significant challenges to immigrant women. In addition to the gendered expectations originating from their own communities and cultures, transnational mothers may also have to cope with gendered notions of ‘good parent’ underlying national and European immigration regimes when pursuing family reunification with their children left behind in their countries of origin. Against this background, the European Court of Human Rights can constitute a benchmark for ensuring transnational mothers’ equal access to family reunification vis-à-vis legally sanctioned and gendered models of ‘good mother’, provided that the Court itself is capable of recognizing said models and avoiding to reproduce them. Thus, this article explores the Strasbourg Court’s case-law on transnational parents’ access to family reunification with the aim to unveil the actual capability of the Court to support a gender-sensitive enforcement of national and European family reunification regimes as well as transnational mothers’ access to family reunification in conditions of equality.


Author(s):  
Koen Leurs

In the face of the contemporary so-called “European refugee crisis,”' the dichotomies of bodies that are naturalized into technology usage and the bodies that remain alienated from it betray the geographic, racial, and gendered discriminations that digital technologies, despite their claims at neutrality and flatness, continue to espouse. This article argues that “young electronic diasporas” (ye-diasporas) (Donà, 2014) present us with an unique view on how Europe is reimagined from below, as people stake out a living across geographies. The main premise is that young connected migrants' cross-border practices shows they ‘do family' in a way that does not align with the universal European, normative expectations of European family life. The author draws on three symptomatic accounts of young connected migrants that are variably situated geo-politically: 1) Moroccan-Dutch youth in the Netherlands; 2) stranded Somalis awaiting family reunification in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and, 3) working, middle, and upper-class young people of various ethnic and class backgrounds living in London. Narratives shared by members of all three groups indicate meta-categories of the ‘migrant,' ‘user,' and ‘e-diaspora' urgently need to be de-flattened. To do this de-flattening work, new links between migrant studies, feminist and postcolonial theory and digital cultures are forged. In an era of increasing digital connectivity and mobility, transnational families are far from deterritorialized – boundaries and insurmountable distances are often forcibly and painfully felt.


2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Schiltz

In Akrich, the Court operated a clear delimitation of competences between Member State and Community level while at the same time protecting the fundamental rights of Union citizens, even in the absence of a deterrence to the exercise of their free movement rights. It is argued that it thereby contributes to the strengthening of Union citizenship rights. The article analyzes the relationship of the decision with existing case law, its impact on the fundamental rights protection in the Union and on reverse discrimination, as well as the implications for Member State competences. In conclusion, it will be argued that Akrich should be seen as a welcome development in the field of citizenship. It is however tainted by legal uncertainty surrounding its scope, which will have to be lifted in order for the decision to be an effective tool in the citizenship box.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document