No abstract

Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens' rights. The Court's turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about 'Social Europe' or 'welfare migration', but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments' threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Court's turnaround on citizenship.While the ECJ extended EU citizens' rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e. the politicisation of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorizes Court responsiveness to politicisation and demonstrates empirically, how the Court's jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship.

Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens' rights. The Court's turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about 'Social Europe' or 'welfare migration', but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments' threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Court's turnaround on citizenship.While the ECJ extended EU citizens' rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e. the politicisation of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorizes Court responsiveness to politicisation and demonstrates empirically, how the Court's jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship.

This article analyses the implementation of European case law at the bureaucratic frontline of European Member States. Theoretically, insights from street-level implementation studies are combined with judicial impact research. Empirically, we compare how EU rules on free movement and cross-border welfare are applied in practice in Denmark, Austria and France. We find that when applying EU rules in practice, street-level bureaucrats are confronted with a world of legal complexity, consisting of ambiguous rules, underspecified concepts and a recent judicial turn by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In order to manage complexity, street-level bureaucrats turn to their more immediate superiors for guidance. As a consequence, domestic signals shape the practical application of EU law. Despite bureaucratic discretion and many country differences, domestic signals create uniform, restrictive outcomes of EU law in all three cases We, thus, show that there is considerable room for politicscommunicated by means of domestic signalling-in the EU implementation processes.

This paper traces the political debate about the export and the indexation of family benefits in the European Union (EU). We ask why such a technical legal issue has become salient in several EU member states. Explanations building on financial and political justifications prove to be insufficient. Rather, we argue, indexation has to be understood in the broader context of the contestation and constitutionalization of the free movement of workers. Free movement and equal treatment of workers have become contested with Eastern enlargement, but their legal framework is largely removed from political adjustments as it is constitutionalized in the Treaties and progressively interpreted by the Court of Justice (CJEU). At least symbolically, indexation promises to address these economic and legal challenges and serves as an "outlet" for member state governments. We illustrate our argument with empirical evidence from the debates preceding the Brexit referendum and the Austrian reform of family benefits.