Applying solidarity as a procedural obligation in EU Citizenship Law

Building on recent EU case law, which underlines that a commitment to solidarity in the European context produces concrete legal obligations, this paper highlights that solidarity has procedural as well as normative and substantive dimensions. It then explores the potential of procedural solidarity in the context of Union citizenship and, more specifically, the free movement of Union citizens. The overall objective is to consider if the conception of solidarity as a procedural obligation under EU law can provide fresh ways to think about persisting challenges around freedom of movement. Procedural solidarity emphasises the fair sharing of responsibility, including financial responsibility, when implementing EU objectives and the taking of decisions collectively, respecting the general requirements of EU law. Fundamentally, while adherence to procedural solidarity might not produce significantly different outcomes in contested areas of EU citizenship law, it would strengthen the decision-making processes that deliver those outcomes, cultivating, in turn, better accountability for the choices made by both EU and national institutions

The benefits of time travel:Harnessing the potential of the historical archives of the Court of Justice for legal research

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(2), 933-940 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction: the added value of the archive for legal researchers. - II. Travelling across time and across cases: transversal Project insights. | (Abstract) This Article engages with a core objective of the Court of Justice in the Archives Project: how best to demonstrate and evaluate the potential of the Historical Archives of the Court of Justice for the purposes of deepening and furthering legal research. It considers two forms of novelty in that light: first, finding out things that are "literally" new; and, second, being alerted to analytical possibilities that arise from looking deeply into a case dossier. To illustrate these instances of research novelty, the Article identifies themes - as well as questions - emerging from the individual reports and from the transversal analysis made possible through the Project, highlighting particular strengths or "added value" factors in that context. It also reflects on the limits of the Archives from the perspective that not all Court of Justice mysteries can, or should, be uncovered