Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Working in tandem: Proportionality and procedural guarantees in EU immigration law

  • Johan Rochel
Abstract

This Article aims at highlighting theoretical and practical issues around the application of the general principle of proportionality in EU immigration. It focuses on the application procedure foreseen by the Single Permit Directive by proposing an argument that combines proportionality and procedural guarantees. This Article has two main objectives: First, it explains why and how the general principle of proportionality is applicable to first admission applications. In this context, the Single Permit Directive—adopted as an important piece of the emerging EU legal regime on immigration—will represent a common theme for our reflections and a timely example on the practical implications of the argument presented in this Article. Second, it explores an important dimension of the legal-philosophical relevance of proportionality as applied to immigration. This specific Article might be apprehended from the point of view of a larger debate on the meaning of discretion in immigration law. It connects to the field of immigration ethics, a field in which legal scholars should become more active. As will be shown, ethical and legal considerations on immigration should work closely together, thereby improving current regulations and their implementation.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Working in tandem: Proportionality and procedural guarantees in EU immigration law
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Working in tandem: Proportionality and procedural guarantees in EU immigration law
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Working in tandem: Proportionality and procedural guarantees in EU immigration law
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Johan Rochel is a Postdoc researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Zürich https://www.ivr.uzh.ch/de/institutsmitglieder/oesch/Postdoc-Researchers.html. Email: johan.rochel@gmail.com

Many thanks to Dr. Stefan Schlegel, Dr. Benedikt Pirker, Dr. Bas Schotel, Stéphanie Colella and the reviewers and editors of the German Law Journal.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

1 See Cathyrn Costello, The Asylum Procedures Directive in Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles, in Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy 193 (Anneliese Baldaccini, et al. eds., 2007).

2 Id.; See also Evelien Brouwer, Effective Remedies for Third Country Nationals in EU Law: Justice Accessible to All?, in The First Decade of EU Migration and Asylum Law 396-399 (Elspeth Guild & Paul Minderhoud eds., 2012).

3 Jurgen Bast, Of General Principles and Trojan Horses – Procedural Due Process in Immigration Proceedings under EU Law, 11 German L.J. 1006 (2010).

4 Source omitted (Anonymous review).

5 On the cross-fertilization effect of principle see Xavier Groussot, General Principles of Community Law 421 (Europa Law Publishing 2006); see also Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast, Principles of European Constitutional Law (Hart Publishing 2010). Considered as “instruments of constitutional dialogue, general principles facilitate the constant renewal of the EU legal order, epitomizing the ’EU’s living constitution.’” Koen Lenaerts & Jose A. Gutiérrez-Fons, The Constitutional Allocation of Powers and General Principles of EU Law, 47 Common Mkt. L Rev. 1629, 1669 (2010).

6 For a broader theoretical framing, see Johan Rochel, Une lecture kantienne de la libre-circulation, Jusletter 1 (2013).

7 For a similar focus, see Jurgen Bast, Aufenthaltsrecht und Migrationssteuerung, in Jus Publicum 207 181(Mohr, Siebeck ed., 2011). This in turn relates to the broader issues of discretion and sovereignty in immigration matters. For a complete analysis of this assumption, see Sylvie Saroléa, Droits de l’homme et migrations: de la protection du migrant aux droits de la personne migrante 466-468 (Bruylant 2006); Jean-François Flauss, L’étranger, entre souveraineté nationale et droits de l’homme, in L’étranger face au droit: XXes Journées d’études juridiques Jean Dabin 1, 48 (Bruylant, 2010). It is interesting to note that David Miller—albeit being a rather critical thinker in matters of immigration—explicitly renounces using the concept of sovereignty because it would “suggest that the state is subject to no restrictions in its treatments of potential immigrants.” David Miller, National Responsibility and Global Justice 216 (Oxford University Press, 2007).

8 Directive 2011/98, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a Single Application Procedure for a Single Permit for Third-Country Nationals to Reside and Work in the Territory of a Member State and on a Common Set of Rights for Third-Country Workers Legally Residing in a Member State, 2011 O.J. (L 343); Council Directive 2009/50/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, 2009 O.J. (L 155).

9 The Court ruled that the list of criteria to assess an application was exhaustive; while recognizing the margin of appreciation in the assessment of these criteria: Case C-84/12, Koushkaki v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2013 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 862 (Dec. 19, 2013); Case C-575/12, Air Baltic Corporation AS v. Valsts robežsardze, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 2155 (Sept. 4, 2014).

10 Case C-491/13, Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 2187 (Sept. 10, 2014).

11 See Case C 11-70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1970 E.C.R. 1125; See also Tor-Inge Harbo, The Functin of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, 16 Eur L. J. 158, 164 (2010); Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 141-42 (Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007); Stefan Vogenauer & Stephen Weatherill, General Principles of Law: European and Comparative Perspectives (Studies of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law) (Hart Publishing Ed. 2017).

12 Joined Cases 92/09 & 93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbRHartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, 2010 E.C.R. I-11063.

13 See Case C 11-70, supra note 11.

14 Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law 601-04 (Oxford University Press, 2012); For the arguments advanced by the AG, see Case C-159/90, The Soc’y for the Prot. of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd. v. Stephen Grogan & others, 1991 ECR I-04685; Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 139 (Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007) (Tridimas is more sceptical and argues that “in practice the Court does not distinguish in its analysis between the second and the third test).

15 Tridimas, supra note 14; For a similar distinction, see Xavier Groussot, General Principles of Community Law 151 (Europa Law Publishing 2006); Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law 590 (Oxford University Press, 2012); Tor-Inge Harbo, The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, 16 Eur L. J. 158, 173 (2010) (Harbo proposes considering the different cases of application from a functional perspective).

16 See Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Dec. 13,2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) art. 5(4) [hereinafter TFEU]; Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Protocol Number 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, May 9,2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115).

17 On proportionality and national measures interfering with fundamental freedoms, see Tridimas, supra note 14, at 193-241; On proportionality in connection with the exercise of competences see Xavier Groussot, General Principles of Community Law 145-46 (Europa Law Publishing 2006); Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 175-92 (Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007).

18 Boultif v. Switzerland, 2001-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 54273.

19 For subsequent case-law see Yildiz v Austria, 2002 Eur. H.R. 37295/97; Amrollahi v. Denmark, 2002 Eur. H.R. 56811/00; Onur v. The United Kingdom, 2009 Eur. H.R. 27319/07.

20 Directive 2004/38, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member State, 2004 O.J. (L 158).

21 Among an important literature, see Jean-Yves Carlier & Elspeth Guild, L’avenir de la libre circulation des personnes dans l’U.E. (2d ed., 2006); Ferdinand Wollenschläger, A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration, 17 Eur. L.J. 1 (2011).

22 Case C-413/99, Baumbast & R v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t 2002 E.C.R. I-07091; Joined Cases 523/11 & 85/11, Laurence Prinz v. Region Hannover and Philipp Seeberger v. Studentenwerk Heidelberg, 2013 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 524 (July 18, 2013); See Jean Yves Carlier, Quels progrès pour les libertés?, in D’Amsterdam à Lisbonne: dix ans d’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice 83, 89 (2010).

23 Case C-158/07, Förster v. Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep 2008 E.C.R. I-08507; Case C-103/08, Gottwald v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz, 2009 E.C.R. 2009 I-09117.

24 Case C-333/13, Elisabeta & Florin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 2358 (Nov. 11, 2014) (the right to reside was recalled to rely upon having sufficient resources and not becoming a burden for the host Member State).

25 For a similar approach, see Francis Jacobs, Citizenship of the European Union—A Legal Analysis, 13 Eur. L. J. 591 (2007). Verschueren opposes this gradation scheme to a “perfect assimilation” model in which Union citizens would be entitled to full equal treatment as soon as they settle. Herwig Verschueren, EU Free Movement of Persons and Member States’ Solidarity Systems: Searching for a Balance, in The First Decade of EU Migration and Asylum Law 47, 69 (Elspeth Guild & Paul Minderhoud eds., 2012); For case-law, see e.g., Case C-158/07, Förster v. Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep, 2008 E.C.R. I-08507; Case C-224/98, D’Hoop v. Office national de l’emploi, 2002 E.C.R. I-06191; Case C-138/02, Collins v. Sec’y of State for Work & Pensions, 2004 ECR 2 I-02703; Case C-103/08, Gottwald v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz, 2009 E.C.R. I-09117; Joined Cases 523/11 & 85/11, Laurence Prinz v. Region Hannover and Philipp Seeberger v. Studentenwerk Heidelberg, 2013 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 524 (July 18, 2013).

26 This discussion is indeed very relevant for the determination of human rights-based obligations. As the European Court of Human Rights put it, “the exercise of jurisdiction is a necessary condition for a Contracting State to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the infringement of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.” Al-Skeini & Others v. United Kingdom, 2010 Eur. H.R. 55721/07. In most cases, territorial borders and jurisdictional borders fall together. This presumption is also accepted by the European Court of Human Rights see Hirsi Jamaa & Others v. Italy, 2012 Eur. H.R. 27765/09. Nevertheless, as a series of highly sensitive cases has shown, this is not necessarily the case. E.g. 40/1993/435/514, Loizidou v. Turkey Rep. 1996-VI Eur. H.R.; Bankovic v. Belgium & Others, 2001-XII Eur. H.R. 52207/99; Al-Saadoon v. United Kingdom, 2010 Eur. H.R. 61498/08; Al-Skeini & Others v. United Kingdom, 2010 Eur. H.R. 55721/07; Medvedyev v. France, 2010 Eur. H.R. 3394/03; Hirsi Jamaa & Others v. Italy, 2012 Eur. H.R. 27765/09.

27 Ana Besson, An Empty Shell? The Protection of Social Rights of Third-Country Workers in the after the Single Permit Directive, 25 Leiden J. of Int’l L. 857, 860 (2012).

28 Id. at 872.

29 For a general introduction, see Bernard Ryan & Valsamis Mitsilegas, Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges (Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010). See also Cathyrn Costello, The Asylum Procedures Directive in Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles, in Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy 287, 295 (Anneliesse Baldaccini, et al. eds., 2012).

30 For a comprehensive treatment of this issue, see Maarten Heijer, Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum (Hart Publishing, 2012).

31 See Hirsi Jamaa & Others v. Italy, 2012 Eur. H.R. 27765/09.

32 To make the link to the ethical literature on migration, this framing seems to be similar to the one proposed by Miller, see David Miller, Border Regimes and Human Rights, 7 L & Ethics of Hum. Rts. 1, 4 (2012).

33 See Besson, supra note 27, at 865. As Besson writes, “It amounts to more than the mere exercise of coercion or power as a result: it also includes a normative dimension by reference to the imposition of reasons for action on its subjects and the corresponding appeal for compliance (e.g., through giving instructions).”

34 For this point, see Bast, supra note 3, at 1021-24.

35 Exactly this distinction seems to be overlooked by Blake writing that a prospective migrant submits “one’s self to the coercive authority of a state for purposes of admission.” See Michael Blake, Immigration and Policitcal Equality, 45 San Diego L. Rev. 963, 965 (2008).

36 Sylvie Sarolea, La souveraineté en droit belge: mythe et réalité, in L’étranger face au droit: XXes Journées d’études juridiques Jean Dabin 93 (Jean-Yves Carlier ed., 2010).

37 This question shares important elements with the question of applicability of the Charter (for example mainly the interpretation of its Art. 51). We shall come back to this later.

38 Johan Rochel, Immigration to the EU: Challenging the Normative Foundations of the EU Immigration Regime 158 (Schulthess, 2015).

39 See Evelien Brouwer, Effective Remedies for Third Country Nationals in EU Law: Justice Accessible to All?, in The First Decade of EU Migration and Asylum Law 375, 383-85 (Elspeth Guild & Paul Minderhoud eds., 2012); Case C-327/02, Lili Georgieva Panayotova & Others v. Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, 2004 E.C.R. I-11055.

40 In that context, Bast speaks of “normalisation” of immigration law through its Europeanization. See Bast, supra note 7, at 293-294.

41 Directive 2011/98, supra note 8.

42 See Kees Groenendijk, Equal Treatment of Workers from Third Countries: The Added Value of the Single Permit Directive, 16 ERA Forum 547 (2015); Yves Pascouau & Sheena McLoughlin, EU Single Permit Directive: a Small Step Forward in EU Migration Policy, European Policy Center 1, 3-4 (2012), http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_1398_eu_single_permit_directive.pdf?doc_id=1207 (Interestingly, Pascouau & McLoughlin do not mention the importance of the Charter and the general principles).

43 Bast, supra note 3, at 1020.

44 Tesseltje De Lange, The Single Permit Directive: A Limited Scope, a Simple Procedure and Limited Good Administration Requirements, in The Single Permit Directive: Central Themes and Problem Issues 5, 7 (Paul Minderhoud & Tineke Strik eds., 2015).

45 Steve Peers, An EU Immigration Code: Towards a Common Immigration Policy, 14 Eur. J. of Migration & L. 33, 27 (2012).

46 See Paul Minderhoud & Tineke Strik, The Single Permit Directive: Central Themes and Problem Issues (Wolf Legal Publishers, 2015). On social rights, see Ana Beduschi, An Empty Shell? The Protection of Social Rights of Third-Country Workers in the EU after the Single Permit Directive, 17 Eur. J. of Migration and L. 210 (2015). For case-law, Case C-449/16, Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v. Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) & Comune di Genova, 2017 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 485 (June 21, 2017).

47 Koen Lenaerts, Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 375, 378 (2012).

48 By analogy, and the same discussion on the asylum procedure see Joined Cases 411/10 & 493/10, N. S. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t & M. E. & Others v. Refugee Applications Comm’r & Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform 2011 E.C.R. I-13905; See also, Marcelle Reneman, EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy 390 (Hart Publishing, 2014).

49 Joined Cases 411/10 and 493/10, supra note 48; For further case-law where the Charter was considered to apply, see Case C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels-und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2010 E.C.R. I-13849; Case C-40/11, Iida v. Stadt Ulm, 2012 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 691 (Nov. 8, 2012); Case C-400/10, J. McB. V. L. E., 2010 E.C.R.; See generally Koen Lenaerts, Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 375, 385 (2012).

50 Joined cases 286/94, 340/95, 401/95, & C-47/96, Garage Molenheide BVBA, Peter Schepens, Bureau Rik Decan-Business Research & Development NV (BRD) & Sanders BVBA v. Belgische Staat 1997 E.C.R. I-07281.

51 Case C-207/86, Asociación Profesional de Empresarios de Pesca Comunitarios (Apesco) v. Comm’n of the European Communities, 1988 E.C.R. 2151.

52 Case C-135/08, Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, 2010 E.C.R. I-01449.

53 Directive 2013/32, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180).

54 See Marcelle Reneman, EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy 390 (Hart Publishing, 2014); Herwig Verschueren, Access to an Effective Remedy before a Court or Tribunal in Asylum Cases in The First Decade of EU Migration and Asylum Law 401 (Elspeth Guild & Paul Minderhoud eds., 2012).

55 By analogy, see the argument advanced by Cathyrn Costello, Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored, 12 Human Rights L. Rev. 287, 307 (2012); Costello, supra note 1, at 180; see also Ryszard Cholewinski, The Need for Effective Individual Legal Protection in Immigration Matters, 7 Eur. J. of Migration and L. 237, 259-62 (2005); for the example of the right to an effective judicial review, see Case C-69/10, Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration, 2011 E.C.R. I-07151.

56 Bast, supra note 3, at 1023.

57 Or in the continuation of the case-law by the CJEU on the “exhaustiveness” of the conditions of entry laid down in secondary law on immigration to the EU. For the Students Directive see Case C-491/13, supra note 10.

58 Bas Schotel, On the Right of Exclusion: Law, Ethics and Immigration Policy 192 (London: Routledge, 2012).

59 On this development, see Bast, supra note 3, at 1015. For case-law, see Joined cases 204/00 P, 205/00 P, 211/00 P, 213/00 P, 217/00 P & 219/00 P, Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Ciments français SA, Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, Buzzi Unicem SpA & Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v. Comm’n of the European Communities, 2004 E.C.R. I-00123.

60 U.N. Charter art 41; For early comments on this development in EU law, see Klara Kanska, Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU. Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 10 Eur. L. J. 296 (2004); Jane Reichel, Between Supremacy and Autonomy - Applying the Principle of Good Administration in the Member States, in General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development 243 (Ulf Bernitz, et al. eds., 2008).

61 Tesseltje De Lange, The Single Permit Directive: A Limited Scope, a Simple Procedure and Limited Good Administration Requirements, in The Single Permit Directive: Central Themes and Problem Issues 5, 11 (Paul Minderhoud & Tineke Strik eds., 2015).

62 Joined Cases 141/12 and 372/12, YS v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v. M & S, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 2081 (July 17, 2014).

63 Case C-166/13, Sophie Mukarubega v. Préfet de police & Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 2336 (Nov. 5, 2014); On this double focal, Case C-604/12, H.N. v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform and Others, 2014 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 302 (May 8, 2014) (general principle of good administration and its counterpart in the Charter). Similarly, on the right to be heard as general principle and as right in the Charter, see Case xC-277/11, M. M. v. Minister for Justice, Equal. and Law Reform, Ireland & Attorney General, 2012 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 744 (Nov. 22, 2012).

64 This point does not address the—maybe distinct—degree of protection guaranteed by these two norms. On this, see Krisztian Kecsmar, Arrêt Mukarubega: Droit à une bonne administration à deux vitesses?, 597 Revue de l’Union européenne 239 (2016).

65 Marcelle Reneman, EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy 94-98 (Hart Publishing, 2014).

66 Schotel, supra note 58, at 192.

67 This strategy is borrowed from Bast, supra note 3, at 1023.

68 For this point see Schotel, supra note 58, at 190.

69 On this point, see Sacha Prechal, Free Movement and Procedural Requirements: Proportionality Reconsidered, 35 Legal Issues of Econ. Integration 201 (2008); In the philosophy of law—with a focus on fundamental rights, see Robert Alexy, Constitutional Rights and Proportionality, 22 Revus 2 (2014).

70 See Bast, supra note 3 (discussing the right to be heard).

71 TFEU art. 296; Catherine Barnard & Steve Peers, European Union Law 216 (Oxford University Press, 2014).

72 Note that U.N. Charter Art. 41 speaks of a right, while the TFEU considers the duty. On this, see Ingrid Opdebeek & Stephanie De Somer, The Duty to Give Reasons in the European Legal Area: A Mechanism for Transparent and Accountable Administrative Decision-Making? A Comparison of Belgian, Dutch, French and EU Administrative Law, 2 Rocznik Administracji Publicznej 97, 101 (2016).

73 Jane Reichel, Between Supremacy and Autonomy - Applying the Principle of Good Administration in the Member States, in General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development 243, 251 (Ulf Bernitz, et al. eds., 2008).

74 Case C-269/90, Technische Universität München v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, 1991 E.C.R. 1991 05469.

75 See Juergan Schwarze, European Administrative Law 1400 (Sweet and Maxwell, 2006); Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law 340 (Oxford University Press, 2012).

76 Jerry L Mashaw, Reasoned Administration: The European Union, the United States, and the Project of Democratic Governance, in Yale Faculty Scholarship Series 1179 99, 101 (2007).

77 E.g. Case C-222/86, Union nationale des entraîneurs et cadres techniques professionnels du football (Unectef) v. Heylens and others, 1987 E.C.R. 4097.

78 Mashaw, supra note 76, at 118.

79 In this respect, there seems to exist an interesting link to the human rights literature and the issue of their foundation. For reflections in this direction, see James Griffin, On Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2008); Rainer Forst, The Justification of Human Rights and the Basic Right to Justification: A Reflexive Approach, 120 Ethics 711 (2010).

80 Thomas Franck, On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law, 102 Am. J. of Int’l L. 715, 715-16 (2008).

81 Alec Stone Sweet & Jud Mathews, Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 Colum. J. Int’l L. 73, 88 (2008).

82 See Franck, supra note 80, at 755.

83 Olivier Lecucq, Le principe de proportionnalité: Simple technique juridictionnelle ou norme de fond. Réflexions tirées du droit constitutionnel des étrangers, 8 Congré Mondial de l’Association Internationale de Droit Constitutionnel 1, 6-7 (2010).

84 See Schotel, supra note 58, at 193 (suggesting this strategy in evoking “obviously proportionate decisions,” but without further investigating it).

85 For the importance of justifying positive decisions, see Tesseltje De Lange, The Single Permit Directive: A Limited Scope, a Simple Procedure and Limited Good Administration Requirements, in The Single Permit Directive: Central Themes and Problem Issues 5, 11 (Paul Minderhoud & Tineke Strik eds., 2015).

86 Bast, supra note 7, at 150.

87 Steve Peers et al., EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary 14 (Leiden, 2012); Bast, supra note 7, at 152 (By contrast, Bast sees in Art. 79(5) an important instrument to diminish conflict potential on the further development of the EU immigration policy).

88 Case C-269/90, supra note 74.

89 Case C-41/69, ACF Chemiefarma NV v. Comm’n of the European Communities, 1970 E.C.R. 661.

90 The European Ombudsman, European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, 21 (2015), https://osha.europa.eu/en/about/good-administrative-behaviour/annex1-european-ombudsman-code-of-good-administrative-behaviour.pdf.

91 Proposal for a Council Directive on the Conditions of Entry and Residence of Third-Country Nationals for the Purpose of paid Employment and Self-Employed Economic Activities, 2001 O.J. (C 332).

92 TFEU art. 29(4); See also the Code proposed by Steve Peers, An EU Immigration Code: Towards a Common Immigration Policy, 14 Eur. J. of Migration & L. 33, 46 (2012).

93 Case C-75/08, The Queen, on the application of Christopher Mellor v. Sec’y of State for Communities & Local Gov’t, 2009 E.C.R. I-03799.

94 See Robert Alexy, supra note 69, at 9. A parallel might be established with the argument on “claim to correctness” proposed by Alexy. Applying proportionality—especially in context of fundamental rights—might bring order and rationality into the law by requiring it to make explicit the reasons of a specific interpretation.

95 Case C-508/13, Republic of Estonia v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2015 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 403 (June 18, 2015).

96 Schwarze, supra note 75, at 140.

97 For the latter element, Joined Cases 78/16 and 79/16, Giovanni Pesce & Others v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Protezione Civile & Others, 2016 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 428 (June 9, 2016); See generally Ingrid Opdebeek & Stephanie De Somer, supra note 72, at 123-24.

98 Schwarze, supra note 75, at 1406.

99 Case C-269/90, supra note 74.

100 This has not always been the case and commentators highlight the global rise of use of proportionality in constitutional contexts. Schwarze, supra note 75, at 1410.

101 In the context of human rights and the different values embodied by them, Letsas makes this point in the following way: “Proportionality, in its normative sense, can track a variety of moral reasons and applies to a variety of moral practices. Its semantic content is subservient to the moral value that governs the domain in question (e.g. democracy or desert in punishment).” George Letsas, Rough Proportionality, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights 316, 320 (Rowan Cruft, et al. eds., 2015).

102 See Franck, supra note 80, at 716.

103 For this idea see Veit Bader, The Ethics of Immigration, 12 Constalations 331 (2005); Jonathan Seglow, Immigration, in International Encyclopedia of Ethics (Hugh Lafollette ed., 2013); Alex Sager, The Ethics and Politics of Immigration: Core Issues and Emerging Trends. (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield International ed. 2016); Christopher Heath Wellman & Phillip Cole, Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude? (Oxford Universtiy Press, 2011).

104 Stone Sweet, supra note 81, at 88.

105 Mashaw, supra note 76, at 111.

106 For the broader idea of a “legal turn” in immigration ethics, see Johan Rochel, Towards a Legal Turn in the Ethics of Immigration, 4 De Ethica 31 (2017).

* Johan Rochel is a Postdoc researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Zürich https://www.ivr.uzh.ch/de/institutsmitglieder/oesch/Postdoc-Researchers.html. Email:

Many thanks to Dr. Stefan Schlegel, Dr. Benedikt Pirker, Dr. Bas Schotel, Stéphanie Colella and the reviewers and editors of the German Law Journal.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

German Law Journal
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2071-8322
  • URL: /core/journals/german-law-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed