Redefining the outer boundaries of EU Law: the Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci trilogy

In its three recent rulings in the cases of Zambrano, McCarthy, and Dereci, the Court appears to have been determined to redefine the external boundaries of EU law, in cases involving the family reunification rights of Union citizens.These three judgments can be read as an indication that for Article 20 TFEU to apply, there is no longer a requirement of a cross-border element on the facts of the case, and that it is sufficient if the contested national measure has the effect of ‘depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance’ of their rights (the ‘Zambrano principle’).The cases can, at the same time, also be read as a confirmation that the free movement provisions do – still – require a cross-border element and, in particular, the exercise of inter-State movement, in order to apply. Though the result in these cases has not been entirely unexpected, especially in the aftermath of the Rottmann ruling, it is rather problematic in that, although it is obvious that the Court wishes to redraw the line dividing the national and EU spheres of competence, it does not make it entirely clear where this line now lies and leaves many essential questions unanswered, which will obviously require some time to be resolved. EU lawyers are consequently, once more, left with having to decipher as best as they can the real intentions of the Court in this new line of case-law, which has been further complicated by the fact that what the Court seems to have given with one hand in Zambrano (and before that in Rottmann), has taken it back to a large extent through its rulings in McCarthy and Dereci, which appear to confine the former two cases to their own exceptional facts.6 Moreover, the ‘reverse discrimination Pandora’s box’, the opening of which appears to have been the real target of these references, remains untouched: instead of providing a direct solution to this problem, the Court has chosen to – once again – broaden the scope of the Treaty provisions in order to include within it as many situations as possible and, thus, prevent the emergence of this type of differential treatment on a case-by-case basis.As will be explained, nonetheless, this is by no means an appropriate solution to the reverse discrimination conundrum.

Agricultural tenancy reform: the end of law; or a new popular culture?

This paper applies a reading of the postmodernisation of law to the incremental reform of agricultural holdings legislation over the last century. In charting the shifting legal basis of agricultural tenancies, from ‘black letter’ positivism to the cultural contextuality of sumptuary law, the paper theorises that the underlying political imperative has been allied to the changing significance of property ownership and use. Rather than reflecting the long-term official desire to maintain the let sector in British agriculture, however, the paper argues that this process has had other aims. In particular, it has been about an annexation of law to legitimise the retention of landowner power while presenting a rhetorical ‘democratisation’ of farming, away from its plutocratic associations and towards a new narrative of ‘depersonalised’ business.

Offensive advertising, public policy, and the law: the rulings on the Zagorka case

This paper examines the case of a controversial beer advertisement which was promulgated in Bulgaria in 2001, and which provoked eight lawsuits against the brewery, its advertising agency, and the Bulgarian National Television. The case set a precedent in Bulgaria and generated considerable public interest and debate. To the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first case in Eastern Europe when individuals have challenged companies in the courts of law because of offence caused by an advertisement. The present study discusses how the public bodies responsible for protecting consumer interests and the courts of first instance assessed the advertisement in the context of Bulgarian public policy regarding offensive advertising.

A new parenthood paradigm for twenty-first century family law in England and Wales?

There are few other areas in family law where incongruence between the legal and social positions is as evident as that concerning parenthood. Recent cases involving lesbian couples and known sperm donors serve to highlight the increasing tension between the respective roles of biology, intention and functional parenting in the attribution of legal parental status. As both legislative and case-law developments have shown, intention is central in some circumstances, but not in others. The main claim of this paper is that this ad hoc approach leads to incoherent and unsatisfactory law: instead of striving to identify a status, what we are really looking to do is to identify the people who assume responsibility for a child. Drawing upon recent case-law, this paper explores how a conceptual reform of the law could result in a principled framework which would place formally recognised intention at the heart of parental status in order to reconnect legal duty with social reality for as many children and parents as possible. Moreover, it would ensure that parental status would not be dictated by the mode of conception of the child (natural or assisted). The analysis identifies the objectives of reform before proposing a new model which, while recognising the social importance of the biological parentage link, would reserve legal status for functional parenthood.