Vinsamlegast notið þetta auðkenni þegar þið vitnið til verksins eða tengið í það: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/28730
The topic of this dissertation is judicial homogeneity in EEA law. In that context, the dissertation will explore in particular one legal concept, the concept of Union Citizenship in EU law.
The foundation of EEA law is the EEA Agreement which extends the EU’s internal market to the EFTA EEA States, with the objective of achieving a “homogeneous European Economic Area”. Based on a two pillar structure, the Agreement requires the EFTA EEA States to adopt secondary EU legislation while prescribing a homogeneity principle to facilitate the undistorted functioning of the internal market. One such act is Directive 2004/38/EC which in the EU facilitates the right to move and reside freely for both economic reasons as well as in the context of Union Citizenship. The former is based on provisions corresponding to Arts. 28, 31 and 36 EEA, whereas no provisions in EEA law correspond to Union Citizenship.
Judicial homogeneity refers to the homogeneous interpretation of EEA law. To explore the role of judicial homogeneity, the effects of Union Citizenship on EFTA Court case-law is studied. The CJEU has developed free movement of persons based on Union Citizenship away from a labour market concept to a universal right available to all Union Citizens.
The structure of this dissertation follows a twofold narrative bound together via the theme of judicial homogeneity. The first narrative discusses the structure and aim of the EEA Agreement followed by an account of judicial homogeneity and its different aspects. The focus is academic literature and case-law from the EFTA Court. The second narrative begins by introducing the concept of Union Citizenship. The main analytical section reviews the EFTA Court’s approach when Union Citizenship has a material impact on issues concerning free movement of persons in the EEA.
Directive 2004/38/EC has been the subject of four cases before the EFTA Court. Three of these qualify as both being materially impacted by Union Citizenship and homogeneity. Exploring judicial homogeneity in EEA law in the field of free movement of persons begs the question whether EEA law is more limited in scope compared to EU law. What is observed is a striking parallel between the two legal orders, suggesting judicial homogeneity may function to bridge a gap between the developments of primary EU law and the static EEA Agreement. Many would argue this is an unbridgeable gap. If judicial protection of free movement rights can be said to be effectively the same across the two EEA pillars—notwithstanding their different premises—judicial homogeneity has widened the scope of the EEA Agreement and to an extent incorporated an equivalent legal basis to Union Citizenship into EEA law.
|Lokaritgerð.pdf||1.25 MB||Lokaður til...31.12.2037||Heildartexti|