Search

The EU's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has renewed discussions on whether the gap between responsibility and responsiveness is, to some extent, constructed. This discussion only partly applies to courts, which are important in interpreting EU crisis responses. While judges do not rule in a political vacuum, it is not their main task to please public opinion. Even if they were to be influenced by changes in public mood, judges have little incentives to claim responsiveness in their judgments. By contrast, higher courts may be considered the epitome of responsibility since they are themselves bound by the law and entrusted to decide on conflicting responsibility claims of other actors. Hence, we ask how different courts interpret responsibility – their own and that of others – during the Eurozone and the COVID-19 crises. We conduct a comparative analysis of responsibility claims in the jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice (CoJ) and the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) at two crucial crisis moments. We find little evidence of judges claiming responsiveness, but important differences in the constructions of responsibility between the two courts and across crises. The gap between how the courts construct their shared responsibilities in EU economic governance has seemingly narrowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we trace Germany's recent reform (and its precursors) seeking to remedy precarious working conditions in the meat sector. Focusing on an extreme case of labour exploitation, and asking how unique it is, allows us to uncover which institutional features of EU Member States condition the liberalization effects of negative integration. We thereby contribute to the literature on Europeanization, which has mainly emphasized weak industrial relations to account for the German meat industry's reliance on cheap migrant labour. Complicated enforcement structures, demanding requirements of administrative cooperation, and the complexities of an evolving case law, we argue, further contributed to the precarious conditions of migrant workers in Germany. Major COVID outbreaks in slaughterhouses created the political momentum for reform which specifically addresses this administrative side of labour protection, but remains limited to the meat sector – despite similar patterns of labour exploitation elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The free movement of people (FMP) was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Calls for better coordination often remained unheard in the initial phase of hectic border closures and mostly resulted in soft EU recommendations. Nevertheless, most restrictions on the FMP were lifted after summer 2020 and could be largely avoided in later waves of the pandemic. We argue that the resilience of the FMP, a fundamental principle of the EU, ultimately depends on policies – borders, welfare, and health – that are still national competence and partly implemented at the regional level. We explain the resilience of the FMP and the observed variation between different border regions by the strength of pre-existing coordinative transgovernmental networks. Our analysis is based on a comparative case study of different German border regions and draws on quantitative data concerning cross-border workers and qualitative interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of WSI Studies is the property of Hans-Bockler-Stiftung and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The free movement of people (FMP) has been a core principle of European Union (EU) integration since its beginnings, but it has recently become contested. This article traces the politicization of FMP, and the topics associated with it, over time and across countries. Rather than constituting a linear or uniform trend, we argue that the politicization of FMP is differentiated: it is driven by particular events such as Eastern enlargement, mitigated by restrictive domestic policies anticipating the expansion of EU free movement rights, and that FMP is salient, but not polarized, from an emigration country perspective. Combining structural topic modelling and qualitative text analysis, we compare three decades of news coverage of FMP in Austria, Germany, Poland and the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we provide an overview of the recently established European Labour Authority (ELA), its goals and powers, before offering a preliminary analysis of ELA. In brief, ELA is an agency with the broad and important objective of improving the enforcement of mobile workers' rights in the EU, but with limited competences and resources. ELA essentially depends on the willingness of national authorities to cooperate through exchange of information and coordinated enforcement action. Nevertheless, our evidence collected from interviews with various stakeholders suggests that it can provide added value in particular by connecting members of national enforcement authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to tackle democratic backsliding in EU member states, the European Commission proposed a new financial conditionality in May 2018 that would allow the suspension of EU funds in cases of systematic rule of law infringements. This article seeks to evaluate the Commission's proposal in terms of its chances at successfully deterring or redressing such infringements. Drawing on both the literature on EU enlargement and on international sanctions, we identify a list of scope conditions for conditionality in order to systematically evaluate the institutional design and analyze the context of application of the proposed rule of law conditionality on EU funds with regard to its expected effectiveness. We find that the current proposal would indeed improve the speed and likelihood of sanctions compared to existing mechanisms, but lacks in the determinacy of conditions and procedures, thus undermining its perceived legitimacy and chances of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution analyses if and under what conditions bottom-up pressures constrain the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Neofunctionalists famously explained the power of the Court by its use of 'law as a mask and shield'. Due to its technical nature, the Court is able to mask the political substance of 'integration through law' and to shield it from political challenges. We revisit this argument in times of politicisation of the EU and develop a typology of four constellations depending on different kinds of bottom-up pressures. We argue that depoliticised integration through law still functions, to varying degrees, in face of either governmental contestation or public politicisation. By contrast, if member state governments and the public jointly oppose further integration through law, the Court is constrained as further expansive jurisprudence could even reinforce politicisation and risk political backlash. We illustrate our argument with case law on EU citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. Thus we show that there is considerable room for politics in EU implementation processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 politicization of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorises Court responsiveness to politicization and demonstrates empirically, how the Court's jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including theory of disintegration in European Union, economic crisis in European Union countries, and the economy of the region.

The citizenship jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has raised hopes for a more social Europe and triggered fierce debates about ‘social tourism’. The article analyses how this case law is applied by EU member state administrations and argues that they are actively containing the Court’s influence. As a result, rather than reconciling the logics of ‘opening’ and ‘closure’, they are heading towards an uneasy coexistence between free movement and exclusive welfare states. The argument here is illustrated with empirical evidence from Austria and Germany. Although both countries have taken different approaches to EU migrants’ residency and social rights, they produce similar effects in practice: increasingly, EU migrants are being tolerated as residents with precarious status without access to minimum subsistence benefits. Ironically, attempts to restrict residency rights have resulted in a temporary extension of EU migrants’ access to welfare in some instances. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article reviews recent advances in the study of the European Court of Justice(ECJ) and its political impact at the European and member state levels. Newquantitative as well as qualitative analyses show with great empirical precisionthat member state preferences guide the Court. The article summarises thesefindings, but argues that greater attention needs to be given to the (over-)constitutionalisation of EU law in order to fully capture the political impact of ECJjurisprudence. Even if European judges are less activist than is often assumed andindividual decisions are more restrained in the face of member state opposition,incrementally, case law evolves in a highly expansive fashion. And, exercisingcaution regarding unrealistic expectations about quasi-deterministic judiciallaw-making, it is found that the Court's constitutionalised jurisprudence impactsheavily on European and member state policy-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union ( EU) has to reconcile free movement rights with national welfare states. Case law of the European Court of Justice ( ECJ) has broadened rights to welfare of economically inactive or marginally active EU citizens. Applying the Court's jurisprudence, which is vague and specific at the same time, poses serious challenges for national administrations. Vague criteria for individual assessments have to be translated into mass procedures. And legislative corrections of the case law are often foreclosed given the EU's skewed separation of powers and the over-constitutionalization of European law, where crucial policy choices are taken by the Court's Treaty interpretation. We compare the British and the German approaches and show that ECJ case law impacts through different channels, but triggers similar challenges for national administrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the potential efficacy and limitations of judicial mechanisms as tools to combat democratic backsliding in European Union (EU) member states. The article argues that more can be done to maximize the effectiveness of existing judicial tools, such as infringement proceedings brought to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Commission and private enforcement litigation in national courts. At the same time, we highlight risks inherent in many proposals for novel judicial tools to defend national democracy. We conclude that despite their importance, judicial safeguards alone – whether existing ones or novel proposals – will not suffice to stop democratic backsliding by a determined national government: if the Union is to rein in such attacks on its core values, heads of government and other EU leaders will have to intervene politically as well. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Today, the European Union (EU) is confronting a new democratic deficit at the national level. A number of EU member states have experienced an erosion of democracy and the rule of law in recent years, most severely in Hungary and Poland. Drawing on different strands of political science research, the contributions to this section debate the strengths and weaknesses of the various safeguards and tactics the EU has deployed or might deploy to resist democratic backsliding by member governments. This brief introduction raises the main questions of the debate: how politically feasible is the application of existing and proposed EU safeguards, and what are the likely consequences, intended as well as unintended, of various judicial and political approaches? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article seeks to explain how the European Union (EU) - by challenging national defence offsets - managed to move into a highly sensitive policy area under formerly exclusive Member State competence. Whereas major accounts of integration depict defence policy as a least likely case, our process-tracing analysis shows that the EU's recent challenge of defence offsets was a case of supranational self-empowerment. We theorize two consecutive strategies of judicial politics, which the Commission employed at different policy stages to overcome opposition from Member States and defence firms against domestic policy change: judicialized law-making and opportunistic enforcement. Both strategies depend on three scope conditions: expansive case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), its fit with policy priorities of the Commission and a credible threat of follow-up litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European regulatory networks ( ERNs) play a central role in the formulation, deliberation, and implementation of EU policies and have, thus, become objects of investigation in a fast-growing scholarly literature. We identify two shortcomings - one conceptual, one theoretical - in the literature on ERNs: First, we argue that the principal-agent approach, which is conventionally used to conceptualize ERNs, overlooks and even misrepresents central features of ERNs. By introducing and applying the 'orchestration' framework to ERNs we demonstrate that it better captures the specific characteristics of ERNs. Secondly, explanations for the choice and design of ERNs have treated functional and power-based accounts as mutually exclusive. We argue instead that explanatory leverage can be gained by combining these two accounts by specifying their respective domains of application. While functional accounts enable us to illuminate why and under what circumstances ERNs are created in the first place (rather than EU agencies or delegation to the Commission), political accounts help us to shed light on variation in the design of ERNs (i.e. why actors opt for rather close or loose network structures). We illustrate the explanatory value-added of such an approach through two brief case studies on EU telecommunications and competition policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negative integration through the expansive interpretation of European market freedoms is said to undermine domestic social regulation – by vertically imposing a strictly liberal interpretation of EU rules and by pushing EU member states into horizontal regulatory competition. This article analyses domestic policy responses to one particularly prominent instance of negative integration: the CJEU’s case law on the freedom of establishment since its first landmark ruling onCentrosin 1999. The analysis shows that national company laws have only converged downwards in one particular subfield – minimum capital requirements – but they remain strikingly diverse across, and increasingly within, member states on most other issues, such as workers’ codetermination rights. Legal uncertainty about the Court’s case law, the mixed economic incentives it provides for firms and political disagreement about appropriate policy responses leave considerable space for differential Europeanisation. The crisis adds to these uncertainties and thus reinforces the trend towards differentiation rather than convergence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The power of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to promote European integration through law has been broadly acknowledged, but the court’s domestic impact has received less attention and remains contested. In particular, the ambiguity of many ECJ judgments is said to have two opposed effects: According to one logic, legal ambiguity enables national policy-makers to contain the impact of court rulings, i.e. to ignore potentially broader policy implications. According to another logic, ambiguous case law provides opportunities for interested litigants to pressure national policy-makers into (anticipatory) adjustments. Which of these two logics prevails, it is argued, depends on the distribution of legal uncertainty costs between supporters and challengers of the regulatory status quo. The argument is supported by two in-depth case studies on the domestic responses to series of ECJ rulings concerning the free movement of capital (golden shares) and services (posted workers). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The smooth adoption of the European Union (EU) defence procurement directive in 2009 is puzzling, because member states had fiercely opposed legislation for the sensitive defence-industrial sector before. We argue that the Commission's strategic usage of judicial politics changed member states' opportunity structure and, by this, transformed a blocking majority of member states into legislative consensus. As it drew on new case law, the Commission pushed member states and threatened to leave the regulation of defence procurement uncontrolled to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In parallel, it promised member states to restore legal certainty and political control if they would approve EU legislation on defence procurement. Following a process-tracing logic, we compare the failed Commission initiatives until 2005 with the adoption of the directive in 2009. Finally, the available evidence is checked against alternative explanations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]