GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN EUROPE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW
GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN EUROPE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW

Summary/Abstract: The right to family reunification constitutes an important component of the protection guaranteed to migrant workers under European social rights law, yet its legal treatment remains fragmented across the Council of Europe and European Union legal orders. This article examines family reunification under Article 19§6 of the European Social Charter (Revised) and analyses its relationship with EU migration law, in particular Council Directive 2003/86/EC, read alongside relevant developments in EU labor migration law, including the Blue Card and Single Permit regimes. The article argues that, notwithstanding the European Committee of Social Rights' consistent interpretation of Article 19§6, family reunification for migrant workers in Europe remains constrained by a structural gap between the Charter's social-rights guarantees and the regulatory logic of EU migration law. That gap is shaped by two interconnected factors: first, the Charter's limited personal scope and the uneven binding force of Article 19§6 across States Parties; and second, the discretion left to Member States under EU secondary law to impose conditions relating to resources, accommodation, integration requirements and waiting periods. EU minimum harmonization has not ensured effective convergence with the standards developed under Article 19§6 and may permit restrictive national rules that affect the practical enjoyment of family reunification. Through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of the case law of the European Committee of Social Rights and relevant EU migration instruments, the article identifies the principal points of divergence between the Charter and EU law, with particular attention to categories of migrant workers whose protection remainsweaker or more fragmented, especially those engaged in temporary, seasonal or otherwise precarious forms of labor migration. On this basis, it highlights the need to improve coordination and strengthen coherence between the two legal systems.

• Details
• Contents