Member States can detain irregular migrants who don't comply with an expulsion decision, in certain circumstances: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, alleged hate speech
New judgment - upholds European Parliament decision to remove immunity from French National Front MEP, to face French criminal proceedings due to a tweet about Muslim women wearing a veil: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, extradition law
New AG opinion in case referred from Irish court - European Arrest Warrant still applies if the Member State issuing an EAW is recognising a conviction handed down by a non-EU State - human rights safeguard applies: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, free movement law
New AG opinion on limits on Member States expelling an EU citizen seeking work - must have a reasonable time to look for work (nb no right to benefits from the host State), and judicial control of expulsion: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
Quality footnote in that last AG opinion 😀
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.
1/ I see "gotchas" assuming that this interpretation of the scope of EU external power is correct. It's not obvious that it is correct: labour migration is not the same thing as trade (apart from short term provision of services), so is not necessarily an EU exclusive competence.
2/ Nor is Schengen necessarily relevant here, as it applies to short term visits and the issue is longer term stays. There's limited EU harmonisation on non-EU labour migration, and both the Treaties and EU legislation have carve-outs on aspects of the topic.
3/ There's no current legal framework requiring Member States to get the Commission’s approval on labour migration treaties. So the Commission would have to sue Member States in the CJEU, and for the reasons just given it's not certain it would win.