Westlaw UK

Despite many efforts to empower the EU citizens and their family members to benefit from the free movement of workers, numerous well-documented obstacles are still present within the EU. The EU intends to eliminate the gap between the rights on paper and in practice in Directive 2014/54 by establishing four procedural pillars—promotion, support, analysis and monitoring. The functions are entrusted to the institution(s) designated by the Member States leaving them a wide discretion to choose the most appropriate institutional model. This article focuses on the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of three possible institutional setups—establishment of a new institution, extension of the mandate of an existing body and assignment of the tasks to several existing national bodies. The study examines which model is more suitable to meet the aims of the Directive, taking into consideration the nature and content of the above-mentioned pillars and specific situation in the different Member States.

The right to housing is now well established within various international and regional instruments. Recent developments in the jurisprudence of monitoring bodies is building upon earlier definitions and serving to clarify the real nature of the right and the extent of state obligations in this area. This article examines developments in housing rights by international monitoring bodies, and traces new trends in the protection of the right to housing in the case-law of the European Committee of Social Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.