Wikipedia: "When the EU Court has had to interpret the treaties and what the articles actually meant, the judges reverted to what the defined purposes and objectives of the treaties were: "to create an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Where there were political differences over what the treaty should contain, the diplomats drafting the text camouflaged the differences by using "mushy" language in the treaty in order to get an agreement."
Therefore, the EU Court has usurped a decisive legislative role

EUObserver July 29.07.2008 EUOBSERVER / COPENHAGEN:  A recent EU court immigration ruling is causing headaches for the Danish centre-right government and may deliver a blow to the country's immigration policies, which are amongst the most restrictive in Europe.

The European Union's highest court ruled last Friday (25 July) in a case of four couples living in Ireland that spouses of EU citizens who are not themselves EU citizens can not be prevented from living in the Republic.
 Previously, under Irish law, a spouse from outside the European Union must have lived in another member state first in order to win residency rights. However the court ruled that this is in breach of EU law on the free movement of citizens.

Inspired by the new EU ruling, a number of couples turned up on Monday (28 July) at the Danish Ministry for Integration in Copenhagen demanding a review of the ministry's rejection of their applications to settle as couples in Denmark.

"The government must tell the EU system that it was a prerequisite for Danish EU membership to be able to run our immigration policies independently," said the spokesperson on EU affairs of the right-wing Danish Peoples Party, Morten Messerchmidt, on Danish Radio. The Liberal-Conservative minority government depends on the support of his party.

 Despite strict immigration practices, the number of residence permits in Denmark has almost doubled in five years - from 33,363 in 2002 to 58,569 in 2007, according to figures from the Danish Immigration Service.

Ralf Pittelkow, former adviser to former Prime Minister Nyrup Rasmussen, in JP, July 28.2008:
The threat to the Danish immigration policy is derived from the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in some cases, which are about the free motility of labour. According to the court, only a few weeks of work in another EU country is enough for you to take your non-EU spouse to Denmark afterwards - regardless of the rules of the age of 24-years for such marriages and attachment to the country.

Danish politicians  have not accepted this at any time. They have certainly not been asked. The Court acted on its own.

The judges have, admittedly, a political basis to work on. The principle of free movement of labour is politically adopted. But by the politicians, it was worded so broadly that it leaves wide scope for interpretations by the Court.

Why are people like the Irish who are basically supportive of the EU, yet so very sceptic?

The answer can be found in the case which is now running on the relationship between the EU and the Danish rules for family reunification. It may, in its extreme, mean that the tight Danish immigration policy is incompatible with EU rules.
The judges politicize as they please
, because the politicians give the latitude to do so.

Political trade-offs that should be the responsibility of elected representatives, have been left to the Court.The wide ECJ opportunities to politicize are a relic of a bygone age. A time when it was good latin in the benchmark EU circles that the nation had to be depleted of most of their contents, so as to create the United States of Europe.

The Court was awarded a key role in this regard: It was to go a long way in terms of  interpretations for the purpose of promoting EU integration.

Which it has certainly done. Quite unilaterally has it strengthened the EU's powers at the expense of national self-determination. Thereby, it is nurturing EU´s serious  crisis of confidence.

The case will probably help make the Danes more EU-sceptical and less willing to give up their EU  provisos (in the coming referendum on their lifting).

The threat to the Danish immigration policy stresses that the politicizing of the European Court of Justice is democratically untenable. The government will have to take the problem up.  

Comment
Unfortunately EU Law precedes national law – according to the legislation of the ECJ!!!
The ECJ has now taken the role of EU legislator
– always interpreting unclear EU laws in the direction of more globalization.

It is a very effective tool in the hands of the New World Order.

According to legends Ogier the Dane, the national hero sleeping at Kronborg (famous for annual Hamlet plays), will awake when Denmark´s existence is gravely threatened. Being one of the  courtiers of Charlemagne  he fought  bravely against the invading Muslims in Spain and France. He embodies the ancient  spirit of fighting for God, king, country and righteousness - so badly needed today.

With this verdict the last remnant of protection against Denmark drowning in a billow of Muslim immigration will disapperar.

Now Danish Media and politicians seem to have had enough of EU dictatorship and EU robbing our national statehood and democracy. They think this matter is a political – and not a judicial one. The politicians feel  overruled and put aside by this eurocratic law-machinery. May this attitude remain!!! And the Minister of Integration has vowed to fight the ECJ.

According to a poll made by the Danish State Broadcasting Company  55% of Danes are angry with the decision  of the ECJ . 29% are pleased  - and  33% have become more EU sceptic.

But of course, the so-called experts (68/Mental Hygiene fellows in jeans and red sweaters) at the universities now do anything they can to dissuade our government from taking the problem up: They maintain such an initiative to be impossible!! They want to save their New World Order progress!

Hopefully, Denmark can find support from Italy who has just declared a state of emergency due to illegal immigration.

Verdict in the actual Case 127/08 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)  25 July 2008:
1. Directive 2004/38 precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.

2, "Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State."

According to the DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Art 17: “A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the
conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years without becoming subject to an expulsion measure
.”

I.e.: After 5 years the brothers, sisters parents grandparents of the spouse from a 3. country can never be sent back

The  European Court of Justice (ECJ) was established for the Coal- and Steel Union in 1952. Today it is an EU Institution
All the EU's judicial bodies are based in Luxembourg.

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Community law, but not national law with each member having its own legal system. It makes sure that EU-level legislation is interpreted and applied in the same manner across the whole of the EU.  Its decisions are binding, ensuring member states, and institutions follow the law.

As of January 2007, the Court of Justice is made up of 27 Judges and 8 Advocates General.
The Judges and Advocates General are appointed by common accord of the governments of the member states. They are chosen from legal experts whose independence and competence are 'beyond doubt'.
Each member state nominates one judge
.

It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions.

Early on it ruled that European law took precedence over national law, and in 2005 it extended this to Criminal law.
In 2001 it ruled that parts of the German Constitution were illegal according to the EU's treaties and had to be amended.

This has drawn criticism from some who see the Court as extending the competencies of the EU with some national leaders regularly criticising the court on this.