Did the Financial Crisis Change European Citizenship Law? An Analysis of Citizenship Rights Adjudication Before and after the Financial Crisis

ECJ Judges Read the Morning Papers. Explaining the Turnaround of European Citizenship Jurisprudence

“…In sum, despite all these interesting divergences, the general pattern is highly similar across all five countries: over the last decade, the issue of cross-border welfare was not only assessed and framed increasingly negatively but it also drew more and more the public's attention. (Šadl and Madsen 2016). In contrast to these more general political developments, our evidence suggests that it was primarily the soaring public debate about the relation between European free movement and national welfare that brought the ECJ to change course.…”

“…The question of EU citizens' crossborder access to welfare benefits touches upon several core issues of integration, such as EU enlargement, citizens' mobility, the viability of national welfare systems, Eurosceptic parties addressing the topic in a welfare-chauvinist way, as well as citizens' eroding consent with the European integration project. At the same time, the scope of our analysis is clearly more limited than that of general accounts of the Court's jurisprudence (Larsson and Naurin 2016;Carrubba and Gabel 2015;Stone Sweet and Brunell 2012) and also more narrow than studies on the Court's entire citizenship case law (Šadl and Madsen 2016). Theoretically, our aim is not to generally test and refute any of the other explanations of Court behaviour discussed above, but to demonstrate the plausibility and the added-value of an account emphasizing the influence of the broader political context on the Court (for a similar view regarding the complementary character of different mechanisms of political influence, see Larsson and Naurin 2016: 385f.).…”

Has the Court changed, or have the cases? The deservingness of litigants as an element in Court of Justice citizenship adjudication

“…Lawyers are divided on this (see Davies 2016;Iliopoulou-Penot 2016;Nic Shuibhne 2015;Thym 2015;Verschueren 2015). However, the issue need not be decided here, for the argument of this article is that the Court is normatively consistent (Šadl and Madsen 2016). That in fact entails a degree of doctrinal flux, for it is notoriously hard to predict the consequences of rules: when the Court invents a rule in order to protect a sympathetic claimant, and that rule later works to the advantage of a less sympathetic claimant, it is faced with a choice between its law and principles, and normative consistency will require it to tweak the law.…”

Assembling Citizenship: Sexualities Education, Micropolitics and the Becoming-Citizen

“…'Citizenship' has been applied variously as an abstract political science construct (Heater, 2004), a legal status (Šadl and Madsen, 2016), an objective of social policy (Bottomore and Marshall, 1992;Dwyer, 2010) and an aim of rights-based activism (Richardson, 2018;Weeks et al, 2001;Wilson, 2009). Sociologically, it has been used to address public participation (Clarke, 2005;Siim, 1998;Turner, 1990), rights (Marshall, 1981;Wilson, 2009) and exclusion and subjugation (Bhambra, 2015), as well as gender and sexualities.…”