No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
The aim of this chapter is to analyse the role of Advocates General in Grand Chamber cases. The latter are supposed to be the crème de la crème of the case law. Alas, this is not always the case as some of the judgments are poorly argued and with quite limited legal reasoning. This chapter demonstrates that formally the role of Advocates General in Grand Chamber cases is the same as in other cases where the Court of Justice sits in different compositions. Several examples are given proving that assistance of the Advocates General is sometimes followed and sometimes rejected by the Grand Chamber. However, a selection of judgments discussed in the last section of the chapter demonstrates another phenomenon. When the Grand Chamber limits the judicial discourse to the minimum it enhances the role of the Advocates General as their Opinions become the only source of reasoning. If that happens we are arguably dealing with assistance with the touch of substitution.
1 From the most recent Grand Chamber case law see, inter alia, Case C-409/06 Winner Wetten GmbH v Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim [2010] ECR I-8015; Case C-119/09 Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-329/11 Alexandre Achughbabian v Préfet du Val-de-Marne [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres [2011] ECR I-00000; Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N S (C-411/10) v Secretary of State for the Home Department et M E and Others (C-493/10) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-41/11 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne [2012] ECR I-00000; Case C-571/10 Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others [2012] ECR I-00000; Case C-495/10 Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon v Thomas Dutrueux and Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura [2012] ECR I-00000; C-489/10 Criminal Proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda [2012] ECR I-00000.
2 See, inter alia, Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2005] ECR I-7879. For an academic appraisal see Herlin-Karnell, E, ‘Commission v. Council: Some Reflections on Criminal Law in the First Pillar’ (2007) 13 European Public Law 69 Google Scholar; Tobler, C, ‘Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council’ (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 835 Google Scholar; Apps, KM, ‘Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council: “Pillars Askew: Criminal Law EC-Style”’ (2006) 12 Columbia Journal of European Law 625 Google Scholar.
3 See, inter alia, Case C-304/02 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic [2005] ECR I-6263. See more generally on the penalties imposed as per Article 260 TFEU, inter alia, Kilbey, I, ‘The Interpretation of Article 260 TFEU (ex 228 EC)’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 370 Google Scholar.
4 Case C-210/06 CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt. [2008] ECR I-9641. See further, inter alia, Szydło, M, ‘Case C-210/06, CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt’ (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 703 Google Scholar.
5 Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767 and Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779. The literature on these two judgments is vast, see, inter alia, Barnard, C, ‘ Viking and Laval: An Introduction’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rönnmar, M, ‘Free Movement of Services versus National Labour Law and Industrial Relations Systems: Understanding the Laval Vase from a Swedish and Nordic Perspective’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dashwood, A, ‘Viking and Laval: Issues of Horizontal Direct Effect’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Novitz, T, ‘A Human Rights Analysis of the Viking and Laval Judgments’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sciarra, S, ‘ Viking and Laval: Collective Labour Rights and Market Freedoms in the Enlarged EU’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deakin, S, ‘Regulatory Competition after Laval’ (2007-2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bercusson, B, ‘The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: Judgment Day’ (2007) 13 European Law Journal 279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, ACL, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wyatt, D, ‘Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Freedoms and the Right to Equality after Viking and Mangold, and the Implications for Community Competence’ (2008) 4 Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 1 Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, C, ‘ Laval’s regulatory conundrum: collective standardsetting and the Court’s new approach to posted workers’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 844 Google Scholar; O’Donoghue, R and Carr, B, ‘Dealing with Viking and Laval: From Theory to Practice’ (2008-2009) 11 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-6351. See further, inter alia, Murkens, JE Kushal, ‘Countering Anti-Constitutional Argument: The Reasons for the European Court of Justice’s Decision in Kadi and Al Barakaat’ (2008-2009) 11 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 15 Google Scholar; Tridimas, T, ‘Economic Sanctions, Procedural Rights and Judicial Scrutiny: Post-Kadi Developments’ (2009-2010) 12 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gattini, A, ‘Joined Cases C-402/05 P & 415/05 P, Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission’ (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 213 Google Scholar.
7 Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] ECR I-6241. See further, inter alia, Currie, S, ‘Accelerated Justice or a Step Too Far? Residence Rights of non-EU Family Members and the Court’s Ruling in Metock’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 310 Google Scholar.
8 As per Art 16 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, it sits in chambers consisting of three and five judges. The Grand Chamber consists of 15 judges. In exceptional cases the Court may also sit as a Full Court.
9 A Hinarejos, ‘Social Legitimacy and the Court of Justice of the EU’, ch 23 in this volume.
10 Case C-302/04 Ynos kft v Jànos Varga ECR [2006] I-390.
11 Case C-236/09 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministres [2011] ECR I-00000.
12 Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) [2011] ECR I-00000.
13 For a comparative analysis see de S-O-l’E|Lasser, M, Judicial Deliberations. A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)Google ScholarPubMed.
14 Sharpston, E, ‘The Changing Role of the Advocate General’, in Arnull, A, Eeckhout, P, Tridimas, T (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law. Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 23.
15 Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1987) 76.
16 As per Art 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice ‘Judgments shall state the reasons on which they are based.’
17 See, inter alia, Solanke, I, ‘“Stop the ECJ”?: An Empirical Analysis of Activism at the Court’ (2011) 17 European Law Journal 764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 van Gerven, W, ‘The Role and Structure of the European Judiciary Now and in the Future’ (1996) 21 European Law Review 211 Google Scholar, 222.
19 Quoted in Darmon, M, ‘The Role of Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities’, in Shetreet, S (ed), The Role of Courts in Society (Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster, Martinus Nijhoff, 1988) 425 Google Scholar, 434.
20 Art 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides: ‘Where it considers that the case raises no new point of law, the Court may decide, after hearing the Advocate-General, that the case shall be determined without a submission from the Advocate-General.’
21 For instance in 2010 the Court of Justice proceeded without Opinions of advocates general in 50% of cases, this was reduced to 46% of cases in the following year. See further Annual Report of the Court of Justice 2011, p 4, available at: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/.
22 This includes the accelerated procedure and the urgent preliminary ruling procedure (PPU). In the case of the latter, publication of Advocate General Opinions led to an academic debate and ultimately change of practice at the Court of Justice. Now views of Advocates General are, as a matter of practice, published, albeit, in some cases, with a delay. See further Arts 104a–b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice [2010] OJ C77/1. For the academic appraisal and an unprecedented letter from the representatives of the academic community see Barnard, C, ‘The PPU: Is it Worth the Candle? An Early Assessment’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 281 Google Scholar.
23 For instance the Italian Trailers to Mopeds case discussed below (Case C-110/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic [2009] ECR I-519).
24 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community [2007] OJ C306/1.
25 For an academic appraisal of the Treaty of Lisbon see further, inter alia, Biondi, A, Eeckhout, P and Ripley, S (eds), EU Law After Lisbon (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Craig, P, The Lisbon Treaty: Law, Politics, and Treaty Reform (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 See, inter alia, the pending case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm.
27 For instance Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings [2010] OJ L280/1; Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings [2012] OJ L142/1.
28 The European Commission has asked the Court of Justice to annul the Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations.
29 In both cases the applicants are seeking annulment of the Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana.
30 Croatia is due to join on 1 July 2013.
31 House of Lords, 14th Report of Session 2010–11: ‘The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union’, available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/128/128.pdf.
32 Since 2007 the Grand Chamber was allocated with 11.4% of all cases at the Court of Justice. As per official statistics of the Court of Justice, it handled 51 cases in 2007, followed by 66 in 2008, 41 in 2009, 71 in 2010 and 62 in 2011.
33 The same research technique was employed by N Burrows and R Graves in their book on the advocate general. See Burrows, N and Graves, R, The Advocate General and EC Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Rawson, H, The Unwritten Laws of Life. Unofficial Rules as Handed Down by Murphy and Other Sages (Churt, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 2008) 55 Google Scholar.
35 Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285. For an academic appraisal see, inter alia, Fletcher, M, ‘Extending “indirect effect” to the Third Pillar: the Significance of Pupino?’ (2005) 30 European Law Review 862 Google Scholar; Spaventa, E, ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: Some Reflections on the Constitutional Effects of the Decision in Pupino’ (2007) 3 European Constitutional Law Review 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 The other Grand Chamber preliminary ruling cases in this area of EU law included, inter alia, Case C-66/08 Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski [2008] ECR I-6041; Case C-123/08 Dominic Wolzenburg [2009] ECR I-9621. See further, inter alia, Janssens, C, ‘Case C-123/08, Dominic Wolzenburg, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009, not yet reported’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 831 Google Scholar; Herlin-Karnell, E, ‘European Arrest Warrant Cases and the Principles of Non-discrimination and EU Citizenship’ (2010) 73 Modern Law Review 824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1.
38 Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
39 See further, inter alia, Denza, E, The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Chekhov, A, The Lady with the Little Dog and Other Stories, 1896–1904 (London, Penguin, 2002) 3 Google Scholar.
41 As per former Art 34 TEU the catalogue of secondary legislation included common positions, decisions, framework decisions and conventions. The most commonly used instrument were framework decisions, which closely resembled the First Pillar directives. However, the direct effect was explicitly excluded in Art 34 TEU. Prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon the preliminary ruling procedure in the Third Pillar was optional and subject to a formal recognition of jurisdiction by the Member States. Furthermore, no equivalent of the First Pillar infraction procedures was available in the Third Pillar. See further Mitsilegas, V, EU Criminal Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar.
42 Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, OJ L82/2001, p 1.
43 See further, inter alia, Drake, S, ‘Twenty Years After Von Colson: The Impact of “Indirect Effect” on the Protection of the Individual’s Community Rights’ (2005) 30 European Law Review 329 Google Scholar.
44 For instance Case C-345/06 Gottfried Heinrich [2009] ECR I-1659.
45 For instance Case 80/86 Criminal proceedings against Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV [1987] ECR 3969.
46 Case C-375/09 Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska . z o o, now Netia SA [2011] I-00000. For an academic appraisal see, inter alia, Brammer, S, ‘Case C-375/09, “Prezes Urzedu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v. Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o. (now: Netia SA), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2011’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 1163 Google Scholar.
47 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Arts 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L1/1.
48 For that purpose the European Competition Network was created. See further Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition 98 Authorities (2004/C 101/03) [2004] OJ C101/43.
49 Case C-196/09 Paul Miles and Others v Écoles européennes [2011] ECR I-00000.
50 Other recent Grand Chamber judgments touching upon the fundamentals of the preliminary ruling procedure include Case C-173/09 Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa [2010] ECR I-00000 and Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10 Aziz Melki (C-188/10) and Sélim Abdeli (C-189/10) [2010] ECR I-5667.
51 Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, [1994] OJ L212/3.
52 Ibid, Art 27(2):
[The Complaints Board of the European Schools] shall have sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels have been exhausted, in any dispute concerning the application of this Convention to all persons covered by it with the exception of administrative and ancillary staff, and regarding the legality of any act based on the Convention or rules made under it, adversely affecting such persons on the part of the Board of Governors of the Administrative Board of a school in the exercise of their powers as specified by this Convention. When such disputes are of a financial character, the Complaints Board shall have unlimited jurisdiction.
53 Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH [1997] ECR I-4961.
54 Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v Evora BV [1997] ECR I-6013.
55 Joined Cases C-424/10 and C-425/10 Tomasz Ziółkowski (C-424/10) and Barbara Szeja and Others (C-425/10) v Land Berlin [2011] ECR I-00000.
56 Case C-162/09 Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Taous Lassal [2010] ECR I-00000.
57 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 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 States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L2004 158/77.
58 See Case C-325/09 Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Maria Dias [2011] ECR I-00000.
59 The Court of Justice in the Lassal case interpreted the words ‘in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Directive’ as covering also the old legislation it replaced.
60 Furthermore, as per the Accession Treaty restrictions on the free movement of workers were imposed in Germany for a period of seven years upon the accession. See further Lang, I Goldner, From Association to Accession: How Free is the Free Movement of Persons in the EU (Den Haag, Eleven International Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.
61 ‘The provisions of this Directive shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions laid down by a Member State which would be more favourable to the persons covered by this Directive.’
62 Case C-110/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic [2009] ECR I-519.
63 See, inter alia, Spaventa, E, ‘Leaving Keck behind? The Free Movement of Goods after the Rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 914 Google Scholar; Wenneras, P and Moen, K Boe, ‘Selling arrangements, keeping Keck’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 387 Google Scholar.
64 Case C-142/05 Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273.
65 Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.
66 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
67 Case C-47/08 European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-50/08 European Commission v French Republic [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-51/08 European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-53/08 European Commission v Republic of Austria [2011] ECR I-00000; C-54/08 European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-61/08 European Commission v Hellenic Republic [2011] ECR I-00000; Case C-52/08 European Commission v Portuguese Republic [2011] ECR I-00000.
68 Para 77 of the Opinion of the AG in cases C-47/08 et al (n 67).
69 Para 121 of the Opinion of the AG in cases C-47/08 et al (n 67).
70 For instance Case 2/74 Jean Reyners v Belgian State [1974] 631.
71 Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] ECR I-00000.
72 See Art 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
73 Ynos (n 10).
74 See further Półtorak, N, ‘Ratione temporis Application of the Preliminary Rulings Procedure’ (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 1357 Google Scholar. See also Łazowski, A (ed), The Application of EU Law in the New Member States. Brave New World (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
75 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993] OJ L95/29.
76 Case C-321/97 Andersson and Wåkerås-Andersson [1999] ECR I-3551.
77 Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice OJ 1994 L344/1.
78 Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Massam Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] ECR I-3763.
79 Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, OJ 1993 L347/2.
80 See further Kalėda, SL, ‘Intertemporal Legal Issues in the European Union Case Law Relating to the 2004 and 2007 Accessions’ in Łazowski, A (ed), The Application of EU Law in the New Member States. Brave New World (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2010) 99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 Ott, A and Inglis, K (eds), Handbook on European Enlargement: A Commentary on the Enlargement Process (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
82 Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union [2003] OJ L236/17.
83 Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL (n 11). See further, inter alia, Tobler, C, ‘Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v. Conseil des ministres, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 2041 Google Scholar.
84 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services [2004] OJ L373/37.
85 See further on the substance of this case in T Capeta, ‘The Advocate General: Bringing Clarity to CJEU Decisions?’, ch 21 in this volume.
86 Zambrano (n 12). See further, inter alia, Hailbronner, K and Thym, D, ‘Case C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 1253 Google Scholar; Morris, R, ‘European Citizenship and the right to move freely: internal situations, reverse dis crimination and fundamental rights’ (2011) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 179 Google Scholar; Van Elsuwege, P, ‘Shifting the Boundaries? European Union Citizenship and the Scope of Application of EU Law: Case No. C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi’ (2011) 38 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 263 Google Scholar; Van Eijken, H and De Vries, SA, ‘A New Route into the Promised Land? Being a European Citizen after Ruiz Zambrano’ (2011) 36 European Law Review 704 Google Scholar; Solanke, I, ‘Using the Citizen to bring the Refugee in: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)’ (2012) 75 Modern Law Review 101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
87 For detailed account of facts see Zambrano (n 12) paras 14–34 of the judgment.
88 Zambrano (n 12) para 37 of the judgment.
89 Zambrano (n 12) paras 40–45 of the judgment.
90 See further Adam, S and Van Elsuwege, P, ‘Citizenship Rights and the Federal Balance between the European Union and its Member States: Comment on Dereci’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 176 Google Scholar.
91 In case of candidate and potential candidate countries case law remains a very important instrument in the tedious process of law approximation.