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.

It is often held that free movement within the European Union and the expansion of social rights of mobile citizens by the European Court of Justice place national welfare states under pressure, potentially leading to welfare retrenchment. Yet thorough empirical investigation of this claim has been surprisingly limited. In this article, we distinguish three possible responses to such pressures: 'embedding', the inclusion of Union citizens in the welfare system; 'quarantining', restrictive measures excluding mobile Union citizens; and 'retrenchment', general cutbacks in benefit programmes. Through a longitudinal comparative case study of generous non-contributory welfare benefits in Denmark and the Netherlands, we find general welfare retrenchment in response to Europeanisation strikingly limited. Instead, welfare states remain resilient by creatively quarantining mobile Union citizens from the coverage of social benefits. Legal cultures and degrees of politicization are important factors, shaping the pathways towards these creative but exclusionary responses.

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.

For decades, the European legislators and the Court of Justice have extended the rights to free movement and cross-border welfare in the European Union (EU). Strong assumptions on the impact of these rules have been posed, by some held to lead to welfare migration and thus to be a fundamental challenge to the welfare state. However, studies of how these rules are implemented and what become the de-facto outcomes hereof remain scarce. We address this research gap, by examining domestic responses to and outcomes of dynamic EU rules. Based on a unique set of administrative data, we do so for all EU citizens residing in the universalistic, tax-financed welfare state of Denmark between 2002-2013. We find that domestic responses have been restrictive and outcomes limited.