2016
DOI: 10.1163/9789004272644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critique of Rationality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the Court stated in Dano, to accept that persons who do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 may claim entitlement to social assistance under the same conditions as those applying to nationals of the host Member State would run counter to an objective of the directive, set out in recital 10 in its preamble, namely preventing Union citizens who are nationals of other Member States from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.' 60 Many commentators have criticised the change in the direction in the case law as representing a 'clearly restrictive judicial approach', 61 a 'reactionary phase',' 62 and a 'pre-Rome' stage, 63 and have pointed out that the restrictions on access to benefits should be interpreted narrowly. 64 At the same time, others have expressed criticism of the previous expansive approach of the court, highlighting the lack of legitimacy of judicial activism and pointing out that the Court's early jurisprudence on Union citizenship was characterised by the absence of a convincing methodology and the tendency to interpret secondary Community law against its wording and purpose.…”
Section: The Negotiation Process: Is There a United Vision Of Integramentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the Court stated in Dano, to accept that persons who do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 may claim entitlement to social assistance under the same conditions as those applying to nationals of the host Member State would run counter to an objective of the directive, set out in recital 10 in its preamble, namely preventing Union citizens who are nationals of other Member States from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.' 60 Many commentators have criticised the change in the direction in the case law as representing a 'clearly restrictive judicial approach', 61 a 'reactionary phase',' 62 and a 'pre-Rome' stage, 63 and have pointed out that the restrictions on access to benefits should be interpreted narrowly. 64 At the same time, others have expressed criticism of the previous expansive approach of the court, highlighting the lack of legitimacy of judicial activism and pointing out that the Court's early jurisprudence on Union citizenship was characterised by the absence of a convincing methodology and the tendency to interpret secondary Community law against its wording and purpose.…”
Section: The Negotiation Process: Is There a United Vision Of Integramentioning
confidence: 99%