Une analyse critique de l'arrêt Coman: déconstruction de la consécration de l'obligation de reconnaissance du droit de séjour du conjoint homosexuel

• Main Author: Edoardo Stoppioni
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu) 2019-02-01
• Series: European Papers
• Subjects: european citizenship; right of residence of the homosexual spouse; autonomous and gender neutral concept of spouse; constitutional identity; queer theory
• Online Access: https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/analyse-critique-arret-coman-obligation-de-reconnaissance-droit-sejour-conjoint-homosexuel

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(1), 377-388 | European Forum Insight of 27 February 2019 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - I.1. Le contexte factuel de l'affaire. - I.2. Le contexte historique de l'affaire. - II. Une articulation contestable entre droit primaire et secondaire en matière de libre circulation. - III. La notion autonome de "conjoint". - IV. L'invocation de l'identité constitutionnelle à l'encontre de son propre citoyen. - V. Le respect des droits fondamentaux, limite à la justification d'une entrave. - VI. Le discours de la Cour à la lumière de la théorie queer. | (Abstract) The Coman case (judgment of 5 June 2018, case C-673/16, Coman and Others [GC]) gave the CJEU the occasion to clarify the existence under EU law of an obligation to recognize the indirect right of residence - according to Art. 21 TFEU - of the spouse of a same-sex marriage. The reasoning of the CJEU is based on the autonomous concept of "spouse", which ought to be read as gender neutral. The Court also rejected the idea of using constitutional identity as a tool to consider the homosexual nature of the union as a limit to the freedom of movement stemming from the Treaties. This Insight analyzes the decision of the CJEU from the standpoint of queer theory. In doing so, it shows the importance of this judicial reasoning in the current legal and political context and how it challenges a discourse of heteronormativity at the same time that it does not require that the homosexual be presented as "normal".