posted on 2019-08-05, 15:22authored byBernard Ryan
This article examines the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning security of residence for EU citizens and family members under Directive 2004/38. The relevant
provisions of the Directive confer a right of permanent residence, and enhanced protection against expulsion, upon longer-term residents. It is argued that, in interpreting
these provisions from 2006 onwards, the Court of Justice adopted a discourse which
conceived of the rights as dependent on an individual’s social integration. The initial
effect of the Court’s ‘turn’ to integration was benign, as it supported the retrospective
extension of permanent residence, and ensured the efficacy of enhanced protection
against expulsion. Later, however, the Court would treat integration as a precondition,
in ways which would limit the rights of long-term residents who were not economically active or self-sufficient, or who had been sentenced to periods of imprisonment.
That Court’s integration discourse was presumably influenced by developments in
policy concerning third-country nationals at the state level which had linked immigration status to integration tests. The result was a selective approach to security of
residence, which tended to deny protection to persons whose presence was unlikely to
be favoured by Member States.
History
Citation
European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, 21 (3), pp. 374-399
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES/Leicester Law School
The file associated with this record is under embargo until publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.