Union Citizenship and Disability: Restricted Access to Equality Rights and the Attitudinal Model of Disability

O’Brien, Charlotte; Kochenov, Dimitry

doi:10.1017/9781139680714.022

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is the responsibility of individuals to avoid being dependent on the state and becoming a burden on the community. This responsibility is no longer collective but individual, 89 placing an increasing burden on individuals, especially those who do not fit the pattern of 'good citizen': the poor, the disabled, 90 minorities etc.…”

Section: The Activation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration duties in the European Union: Four models

Ganty

2021

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integration is becoming increasingly important in law, due to the growing involvement of the legislative, executive and judicial powers at European, national, regional and local levels. This phenomenon concerns third-country nationals and EU citizens, despite the fundamentally different legal regimes applicable to these groups. In this article, I discuss the expansion of integration duties and the different legal mechanisms which they are based on. I propose four conditions- and obligations-based integration models likely to be found in EU law and national laws: the symbolic model, the meritocratic model, the activation model and the selective model. From a legal perspective, identifying these integration mechanisms is essential for assessing compliance with fundamental rights and EU law. Moreover, such a typology is likely to help researchers, policy-makers and the public obtain a better sense of how the conception of integration evolves in our societies and in the legal field in particular. I conclude by briefly sketching a common trend which I observed throughout the four models: they are imbued with a strong socioeconomic dimension hindering the socioeconomically underprivileged categories.

show abstract

Section: The Activation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration duties in the European Union: Four models

Ganty

2021

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…109 At the same time, the justification behind the choice of the key paradigm of 'normal' to be protected are blurry and not always clear, to say the least. This has the effect of punishing those persons and relationships that do not fall within the proclaimed 'good citizenship' ideal, 110 be it a same-sex family, a person with a disability, 111 or a woman absent from work during pregnancy. 112 Coman represents enormous progress compared with Grant v. SWT just 20 years ago, warranting one of the authors of this note to correct his earlier statement calling the Grant Court a 'homophobic bench'.…”

Section: Question No 3: the Acceptability Of The Free Movement Pamentioning

confidence: 99%

After the celebration: Marriage equality in EU Law post-Coman in eight questions and some further thoughts

Kochenov

Belavusau

2020

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a detailed critical analysis of the case of Coman, where the Court of Justice clarified that the meaning of the term ‘spouse’ in Directive 2004/38 was gender-neutral, opening up the door for same-sex marriage recognition for immigration purposes all around the EU, thus destroying the heteronormative misinterpretations of the clear language of the Directive practised in a handful of Member States. The state of EU law after Coman is still far from perfect, however: we underline a line of important questions which remain open and which the Court will need to turn to in the near future to ensure that marriage equality moves beyond mere proclamations in the whole territory of the Union.

show abstract

“…99 At the same time, the justification behind the choice of the key paradigm of 'normal' to be protected are blurry and not always clear, to say the least. This has the effect of punishing those persons and relationships that do not fall within the proclaimed 'good citizenship' ideal, 100 be it a same-sex family, a person with a disability, 101 or a woman absent from work during pregnancy. 102 Coman represents enormous progress compared with Grant v. SWT just twenty years ago, warranting one of the authors of this note to correct his earlier statement calling the Grant Court a "homophobic bench".…”

Section: Questions About the Acceptability Of The Free Movement Paradmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same-Sex Spouses in the EU after Coman: More Free Movement, But What About Marriage?

Kochenov

Belavusau

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a detailed critical analysis of the case of Coman, where the Court of Justice clarified that the meaning of the term 'spouse' in Directive 2004/38 was gender-neutral, opening up the door for same-sex marriage recognition for immigration purposes all around the EU, thus destroying the heteronormative misinterpretations of the clear language of the Directive practiced in a handful of Member States. The state of EU law after Coman is still far from perfect, however: we underline a line of important questions which remain open and which the Court will need to turn to in the near future to ensure that marriage equality in moves beyond mere proclamations in the whole territory of the Union.

show abstract

Union Citizenship and Disability: Restricted Access to Equality Rights and the Attitudinal Model of Disability

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Integration duties in the European Union: Four models

Integration duties in the European Union: Four models

After the celebration: Marriage equality in EU Law post-Coman in eight questions and some further thoughts

Same-Sex Spouses in the EU after Coman: More Free Movement, But What About Marriage?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About