• Home   /  
  • Archive by category "1"

Eu Law Citizenship Essay

Citizenship And The European Union Essay

Citizenship and the European Union

1. Introduction

The idea and practice of European citizenship is relevant in two main ways

to the recent controversy in Germany over plans by the governing Social-

Democratic Party to reform citizenship law. One of these is that the

concepts of citizenship and nationality continue to be thought of as

synonymous in Germany but are now relatively distinct, both linguistically

and politically, in several other national regimes and in the European Union

(EU). Secondly, on the one hand, new German provisions will be more

similar than before to the nationality laws of other member states by

introducing a right [as opposed to a discretionary possibility] to citizenship

through residence and legal naturalization, as well as ancestry. But, on the

other, the decision on 16 March 1999 to abandon the possibility of dualcitizenship

[or, in my language, nationality] means that, in this respect, the

German approach to citizenship now runs counter to suggestions made by

some specialists about the EU as a site of democratic practice.

This paper will open with a brief discussion of the distinctiveness of

citizenship and nationality. This is necessary so that one can understand the

following section outlining EU provisions. In conclusion, this paper will

discuss some of the arguments about the prospects for EU citizenship, with

special reference to loosening the overlap between the legal label of

national identity and the normative practice of citizenship.

Elizabeth Meehan

4

2. Citizenship and Nationality

As I have suggested elsewhere1, there are good grounds for treating the

overlap of citizenship and nationality as a matter of historical contingency

and not as an analytically necessary connection. In short, nationality is a

legal identity from which no rights need arise, though obligations might--

as is obvious when nationals are called 'subjects'. Conversely, citizenship

is a practice, or a form of belonging, resting on a set of legal, social and

participatory entitlements which may be conferred, and sometimes are,

irrespective of nationality--or denied, as in the case of women and some

religious and ethnic minorities, regardless of nationality.

While borders had been porous in the Middle and Late-Middle Ages and

migration normal, the strategic interests of new states lay in impregnability

and control of persons with or without leave to cross frontiers. Nationality

was an obvious criterion and proof of nationality a simple method of

verification. The process of modernization in the new states went hand in

hand with the construction of the nation. This served external and...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

Religion and the European Union Essay

869 words - 3 pages Religion and the European Union The European Union, or E.U., has existed in its modern form since it was formed by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Since then, fifteen countries have joined the E.U., increasing the number of member countries to 27. Countries must meet strict standards when applying for membership to the E.U., as there are many factors which determine whether their request for membership is approved or denied....

Legislation and the European Union Essay

2864 words - 11 pages Certain dynamics emerge in the process of integration of specific policy areas in the European Union member countries: With increasing Europeanization of governing in the multilevel system of governance in the EU, more and more national competences are moved to the European level (vgl. Scharpf 2002, p. 71). During this transfer, an increasing loss of power held by the national parliaments, or rather a shift of power from the national parliaments...

The European Union and Airlines

1346 words - 5 pages The European Union and Airlines Situation: Throughout the time one of the most regulated industries has been the airline industry. The creation of the European Union (EU) had allowed for the airlines from those countries to fly among each other’s with fewer regulations. This deregulation has propelled a wave of changes for the carriers based on these countries. One of these changes is the proliferation of strategic alliances as the...

Globalization: Germany and the European Union

2442 words - 10 pages Along with every other nation around the globe, Germany has its own unique past. From the days previous to Bismarck to present time, the Germans have undergone significant trials and tribulations. Unfortunately for Germany the world will forever equate German history with Hitler and the Third Reich. As educated people, we need to be able to get past this stigma and appreciate the Germans for who they truly are. After the ending of the...

The European Union and a Divided Cyprus

1513 words - 6 pages The Implications for the European Union of Cyprus being divided between Turkey and Greece The island of Cyprus is the third largest in the Mediterranean with the 2002 population around 705,5000. Its main economic activities include banking, craft exports, merchant shipping, and tourism, which accounts for twenty percent of business (europa.eu.int). For almost thirty years it has been split between Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots....

The European Union and Persona Data Protection

1742 words - 7 pages Nowadays, more people give away their personal information on social networks without realizing the potential threats. Under EU law, personal data is defined as ‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.’ While under Article 8 ECHR, there is a fundamental right for the privacy of your life. The Directive 95/46/EC sets a landmark in the history of data protection within the EU. In January 2012 the Commission...

Regional Economic Integration and the European Union

993 words - 4 pages This paper will evaluate regional economic integration and its role in promoting global business and will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of it. The European Union (EU) will be looked at and discussed and the different countries involved in that union will be evaluated as well as their stage of economic development.The world is changing rapidly....

European Union Policies and the Czech Republic

3047 words - 12 pages Czech Republic has gone through two major transformations in less than eleven years. In 1993, what was formerly known as Czechoslovakia, split into two separate countries. Both Czech Republic and Slovakia joined the European Union in 2004 along with eight other nations. Two EU policy issues that affected or continue to affect Czech Republic were the adoption of the euro and ratification of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Czech Republic’s president is...

The European Union extended

4864 words - 19 pages 1. Why the European Union?PeaceThe idea of a united Europe was once just a dream in the minds of philosophers and visionaries. Victor Hugo, for example, imagined a peaceful 'United States of Europe' inspired by humanistic ideals. The dream was shattered by two terrible wars that ravaged the continent during the first half of the 20th century.But from the rubble of World War II emerged a new kind of hope. People who had...

The European Union

4598 words - 18 pages Introduction In the course of fifty years, the European Union has expanded from six countries united under economic treaties to a large collective of twenty-five sovereign nations. Maintaining the union within such a large group has grown more difficult as numerous treaties have been drafted to control the governance of the European Union. To reduce the number of treaties in the union, the convention decided to draft a Constitution, which...

The European Union

5786 words - 23 pages The European Union 1.     INTRODUCTION     1 1.1.     MISSIONS AND VISIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION     1 1.2.     THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION     1 1.3.     THE LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT FOR EUROPEAN UNION     2...

Introduction

The legal status of European Union citizenship, first codified in Maastricht in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in 1992, is currently to be found in Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which states that “[c]itizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.” The establishment of this provision bestowed upon every citizen the right to move and reside freely in the Union without reference to economic activity. Prior to its adoption such a right was limited to those Member States nationals who could prove employment, self-employment, self-sufficiency or student status.
Despite this apparent widening of citizenship status it has been claimed that “for many years now, the Court of justice of the European Union has been struggling with the Maastricht promise of EU citizenship.” However, this essay will show that, despite fears that EU citizenship would be mainly symbolic in nature, and although problems still remain, driven by the “tactical interventions” of an initially reticent Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter The Court or CJEU) and important legislative additions, EU citizenship is on its way to achieving the status first promised in Grzelczyk whereby it is destined to become the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States.

A Market Citizen?

The notion of a European Citizen was clearly not at the forefront of the minds of those who drafted the founding Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community in the 1950s. As the name suggests the notion of a European Community was mainly an economic one with the only consideration of those resident in it being as market citizens whose participation in and benefit from the Community derived from exercising their rights of free movement as workers or providers of goods or services. Prior to the addition of Croatia as the twenty-eighth Member State of the Union only 2.5% of the EU population was comprised of citizens living in another Member State. Therefore, the majority of citizens have not exercised their rights of free movement (save perhaps as tourists) yet Union law continues to affect the lives of this majority in many ways. It has been claimed that those who have not exercised their free movement rights “feel at best removed, and at worst alienated, from those taking decisions in their name.” This legitimacy gap posed a problem for the EU, as Theodora Kostakopoulou has pointed out “one does not fall in love with the common market.” Citizenship, as introduced at Maastricht, aimed to “provide the glue to help bind together nationals of all the Member States.”

Unsure Beginnings

In its codified infancy EU Citizenship was treated to a mixed reception by academic commentators. Joseph Weiler described it as “little more than a cynical exercise in public relations” whilst others believed the limited political rights it did create, such as the right to consular protection, hid the true intentions of further promoting market integration. Meanwhile, The Court, it has been claimed, also initially interpreted the citizenship provisions of the Treaty with the objective of the common market in mind. It has been argued that this occurred due to the fact that what is now Article 20 TFEU only changed the idea of citizenship “on the face” of things and that a pre-Maastricht “quasi-citizenship” had been present in an “incipient” form since the 1970s, thus EU law “remained contaminated” by its own past. This adherence to pre-Maastricht thinking led to a continuation of the belief that the European Union should not engage in determining who its citizens are. This was evident in the United Kingdom where, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Vitale and Amaral, the English court did not deem it necessary to refer the question of the direct effect of what is now Article 21 TFEU to the CJEU despite being permitted to do so even if it thought the case was clear The Court itself took a similar position in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Kaur when it denied a British overseas citizen protection under EU law as it was not prepared to question a State declaration of the concept of ‘nationals’ in the UK Treaty of Accession 1972.

Further examples of The Court’s initial “consolidating, rather than constitutionalising approach to Union citizenship” can be found in it’s ruling that EU citizenship was not intended to affect the scope ratione materiae of EU law. According to Kostakopoulou, although European judges believed that Union citizenship was not intended to be a market citizenship they proceeded down the path of “adaptive stabilisation” for several reasons. Firstly, they took the Danish opt out Declaration as a barometer of national executives’ fears about the possible implications of Union citizenship. Secondly, she claims that European judges were alive to the possibility that Member States were apprehensive about the movement of inactive economic actors absent any firm assurances that these citizens would not burden their respective social welfare systems. Finally, she points to the prevailing mood amongst Member States, evident from various government proposals in circulation before the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, that the authority and independence of The Court should be limited and a general feeling of dissatisfaction with its “influential institutional operation.”

Against this backdrop of stiff Member State fear and opposition, sweeping changes to The Court’s interpretation of citizenship would have been at odds with the long-term objective of citizenship as the fundamental status of Member States’ nationals. However, as Kochenov and Plender have pointed out, “the logic behind the Pt II TFEU seems to be radically different from the pre-Maastricht assumptions read into the Treaty by The Court.” Indeed, a rudimentary glance at the text of what is now Article 21 will highlight an absence of any reference to economic actors, internal markets, the need to move to a new Member State or the limitation on the provisions limiting EU law’s scope ratione materiae. With this in mind, the court needed to move away from the old Economic Community law towards the promise of social citizenship and began to do so by invoking principles of non-discrimination provided for by way of what is now Article 18 TFEU.

The Court Intervenes

As Jacobs points out, in earlier case law Article 18 had not been often used with The Court instead relying on more specific prohibitions of discrimination, particularly those governing free movement of workers. However, in the case of Martinez Sala The Court moved towards a reliance on Article 18 when it ruled that a German Federal Law requirement placed on a lawfully resident Spanish national that stated she must produce a residence permit in order to claim a child raising allowance was discriminatory according to (what is now) Article 18 as no such requirement was placed on German nationals. The case was seen as “groundbreaking” as it “explode[d] the linkages” previously required for non-discrimination to apply, namely a necessity to be involved in economic activity as a worker or service supplier or to show preparation for a future economic activity as a student etc. However, in this case The Court did not base the appellant’s right to residence on Articles 20-21 TFEU, relying instead on the rather “unusual” set of circumstances regarding Ms Sala’s situation which allowed the German authorities to authorise her residence on the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance of 1953. By taking this route The Court avoided having to answer the question of whether Articles 20-21 TFEU would confer a right of residence on the appellant despite her seemingly not fulfilling the criteria laid down in the 1990 residence Directive that she should have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social security system of the state. Despite the fears of some commentators that the nature of the decision restricted The Court to only reaching similar outcomes in cases with very similar circumstances to those faced by Ms. Sala, others saw the decision as “paving the way” for the referral of more problematic questions of citizenship to The Court and believed that Sala showed The Court was now prepared to “attach a new constructive meaning to the status of citizenship” by doubting the need for a link between economic activity or self-sufficiency and citizen status.

Following Sala came the “seminal” case of Grzelczyk. In this case Advocate General Alber believed the appellant student who had been denied social assistance could be classified as a worker based on a Council Regulation. However, The Court dispensed with the “minimalist perspective” associated with the market citizenship model and stated the much-repeated phrase that “Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States.” As Union citizens “can rely on [Article 18] of the Treaty in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae of Community Law” Article 18, when read in conjunction with the Articles pertaining to citizenship, led to Court to find that the appellant could rely on the non-discrimination provisions to claim the assistance he sought. The decision in Grzelczyk undoubtedly strengthened the rights of non-economic actors by questioning the need for a link between economic activity and residence in the case of those facing temporary financial difficulties and, as one commentator put it, “gave a strong appearance of the case law moving away from the grant of particular rights to particular groups of (economic) actors and instead embracing a powerful mission of protection of individual rights [with] [t]he gap between migrant economic actor and Citizen of the Union [becoming] ever smaller.”

A Time for Change

By now it was not just The Court who were advancing the importance of citizenship in the Union structure. In 2000 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was ‘solemnly proclaimed’ by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. A year later the Commission put forward a proposal for a Directive on the right of citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States, thus giving political impetus to positive readings of EU citizenship issues. Capitalising on this climate The Court in Carpenter delivered a judgment described as a “remarkable case of judicial activism” where it established a right of residence deriving from Article 49 EC on the Right of Establishment, trumping established national migration laws. The appellant was the third country national wife of a UK (and thus European) citizen who resisted a deportation order by claiming that her role as stepmother to her husband’s children allowed her husband the freedom to provide services in other Member States whilst she carried out these duties. The UK government claimed that as the husband was a UK national living in the UK the cross border element to activate Union law was missing. However The Court disagreed with this submission basing its judgment on Article 49 being read in conjunction with the principle of respect for family life now recognised by Union law.

The Move away from Market Citizenship

The next “building block” in The Court’s development of citizenship as the primary source of citizen’s rights was laid in Baumbast This case raised the question of what, if anything, Article 21 added to existing case law. The Court responded to this question by “going beyond the predictive confines of settled law in order to realise the promise inherent in Union citizenship and to bring about institutional change.” It did this by confirming that Article 21 created directly effective rights enforceable in Member States’ national courts “by a clear and precise provision of the […] Treaty.” The Court went on to state that any limitations and conditions in respect of this right of residence are subject to judicial review and therefore do not prevent the provisions of Article 21 conferring rights on citizens which the national courts must protect. The decision is seen as one which “severed the link between migration and being economically active” and better reflected the idea of social citizenship.

The Court continued on its course of the “radical” use of citizenship provisions in further cases such as Garcia Avello where it combined Articles 18 and 20 TFEU to rule that citizens should not suffer discrimination based on their surnames and in Pusa where Advocate General Jacobs declared that Article 21 should not be confined to cases of direct or indirect discrimination but rather “[…] no unjustified burden may be imposed on any citizen of the European Union seeking to exercise the right to freedom of movement or residence.” It has been claimed that the “significance of this [statement] can hardly be underestimated” as it is a “clear statement of the mainstreaming of [Article 20].”

Legislative Changes

Meanwhile further legislative changes were afoot. On the day The Court delivered its verdict in Pusa the so-called Citizens Directive was approved. The Directive repealed and replaced the several existing Directives on the migration of citizens therefore creating a single legal regime for residence and free movement within the European Union. The Directive gave further texture to the depth of EU citizenship by creating an unqualified right of permanent residence for Union citizens, and their family members, after five continuous years in the host Member State. Importantly, recital three of the Directive’s preamble gave formal recognition of The Courts thinking in cases such as Grzelczyk by stating that “Union citizenship should be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right of free movement and residence” thus formally giving recognition to the move away from Union citizenship being reliant on economic participation in the internal market.

The Road to Constructive Citizenship

The adoption of the Directive was said to have created the “institutional preconditions for a constructive approach to citizenship” and evidence of this can also be seen in The Court’s decisions in a line of cases, beginning with the 2010 judgment in Rottmann, that have been said to have had “profound transforming consequences for the constitutional development of the status of citizenship of the Union.” Rottmann was an Austrian national by birth who acquired German citizenship by a naturalisation process which resulted in the loss of his Austrian nationality. Due to the discovery of hitherto undisclosed criminal proceedings pending against Rottmann in Austria the German authorities attempted to revoke his German citizenship. As this would have left Rottmann essentially stateless the question for The Court was whether the principles of EU law apply to the loss and, arguably therefore, the acquisition of Member States nationalities if this in turn affects the European citizenship status of the person in question. As we have already seen Member States’ national courts were previously unconcerned with referring questions of nationality to The Court and The Court itself was prepared to defer to those national courts’ competence on the issue. However, in Rottmann, despite the Advocate General taking the view that such a decision to revoke nationality was not within the competence of EU law and intervening governments being of the same opinion, The Court decided that “by reason of its nature and its consequences” the matter fell very squarely within the scope of EU law. Distinguishing from Kaur on the basis that the appellant in that case was not an EU citizen the decision effectively placed constraints on the areas Member States’ nationality laws which could conflict with the requirements of EU law and was hailed by many as a limit that had been a long time coming. The reasoning of The Court allowed for the retention of the link between Member State nationalities and EU citizenship but also ensured that it “effectively became the ultimate guarantor of legality in cases concerning the possession of EU citizenship status.”

Rottmann is perhaps the first clear example that The Court, in cases involving EU citizenship, is now prepared to move away from the traditional cross-border approach to the scope of EU law, there was no reference to the existence of a cross-border situation in its judgment despite the facts of the case seemingly allowing for The Court to construct one if it so wished. The decision of The Court has been described as “a radical departure from its previous case law” and one which “paved the way” to putting the citizen and her rights, and not market integration, centre stage and thus was a step further along the road to making EU citizenship the fundamental status of all EU citizens.

The next important case along this road was Ruiz Zambrano in which The Court was again prepared to decide in favour of the appellants despite there being no cross-border situation to speak of, and thus confirmed that this approach, first taken in Rottmann, was not one which should be confined to the rather unique facts of the former case. In Zambrano The Court Held that the denial of residence and a work permit to the third country national parent of EU citizen children who had never exercised their right to free movement amounted to depriving those children of “the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to [their status as EU citizens].” Zambrano takes a wider understanding of the competence of The Court in matters relating to citizenship because whereas Rottmann concerned the very status of EU citizenship, as well as the rights attached to that status, enabling The Court to declare that it was within its scope “by reason of its nature and its consequences,” Zambrano concerned neither the status of EU citizenship nor Member State nationality. The ‘genuine enjoyment’ test it espoused in order to establish competence has been described as being of an “infinitely wider logical constellation” and had the effect of “eschewing border-sensitive thinking in favour of concentrating on the severity of Member States interference with the rights of EU citizens.”

The decision in Zambrano was not without its critics with some arguing that it “prioritised individual justice over legal certainty” whilst others pointed out that The Court’s failure to clearly indicate the potential reach of the new approach brought into question the ability of Member States to regulate European citizens’ access to EU law using procedural considerations as justifications. However, The Court soon addressed these concerns in the cases of McCarthy and Dereci.

The Court in McCarthy held that the deportation of an EU citizen’s third country national husband did not interfere with the genuine enjoyment of the substance of her rights, it distinguished the case from Zambrano as the children in that case would have been deprived of their substantial rights as to deny their father residence would have obliged them to leave the Union. The Court’s decision in McCarthy clearly outlined the ambit of the substance of European citizenship and thus provides a fuller understanding of the meaning, scope and limits of Zambrano . Some commentators see it as a “deliberate exercise of explanation” which has managed to “dissipate the fears of Member States” and curtailed “visionary readings that could expand the implications of Rottmann and Zambrano.” Whilst the judgment did indeed clip the wings of the Zambrano decision by excluding the application of EU law to the situation of a Union Citizen with a sturdy residence in the Member State of her nationality, the reasoning that citizenship per se and not the existence of a cross-border element is the trigger for the application of EU law remained untouched. As Wiesbrook points out, after the potentially far-reaching decision in Zambrano a more restrictive judgment limiting its implications was, perhaps, “to be expected.” The decision in Dereci provided further clarification of the scope of the ‘genuine enjoyment’ approach. The Court held that the criterion associated with the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the rights conferred by EU citizenship relates to the very specific situation where a Union citizen has to leave the territory of the Union as a whole. This “negative clarification” is thus a significant narrowing of the scope offered up by Zambrano and is one which means Member States’ courts retain a wide scope of discretion to apply what remains “a highly indeterminate test.” Despite McCarthy and Dereci narrowing the Zambrano decision there can be no doubt that The Court’s new approach of eschewing the need for a cross border element “bear[s] the seed for a generation of case law that promises to offer a new progressive approach to the current limitations and shortcomings that characterize the status of Union citizenship.”

Conclusion

Despite The Court’s interpretations of the early case law discussed above being dismissed as the “end of rational jurisprudence” it is clear from the foregoing discussion that, as Kostakopoulou puts it, “EU citizenship matters.” The step by step approach of The Court, which has seen a move away from the strict focus on economic activity, has seen the early talk of a merely symbolic institution or of a ‘market citizen’ long since fade, its decisions have given “meaning, specificity and value” to Union citizenship that will “impact on, and modify, national legal cultures.” And yet problems remain, whilst a number of rights are forming for nationals of Member States in an increasing number of situations the situation for third country nationals resident in the Union has arguably worsened. That the status of Union citizenship is derivative of national citizenship automatically excludes third country nationals from the protection of the citizenship provisions in TFEU and has been criticized for “undermining the legitimacy of the concept of the European citizenship.” Another issue that is yet to be fully addressed is the ‘wholly internal situation’ which continues to fall outside the scope of EU law save for situations where an EU citizen is deprived of the ‘genuine enjoyment’ of the substance of her rights by having to leave the Union as a whole, thus reverse discrimination remains legitimate under EU law. Furthermore, the broadening of Union citizenship has led to the fear among many Member States’ nationals that their home social assistance programmes are being opened up to ‘welfare tourism.’ Two of these issues (reverse discrimination and social tourism) are covered comprehensively on other pages of this website and until all of these issues are addressed by the institutions of the EU it cannot truly be claimed that citizenship is indeed the fundamental status of Member States’ nationals. However the case law discussed in this contribution, and in particular the recent Rottmann/Zambrano line of cases which have moved away from the need for a cross-border element, show a clear and determined effort on the part of The Court to eventually fulfilling that ambition.

PEER REFLECTIONS

Samuel Pentony

To my mind, the idea of citizenship is still very much tied up with notion of nationality and the nation state. Such an identity, in the UK at least, additionally contains the cultural and historical backdrop of monarchy. The legal rights associated with my status as a UK citizen are therefore a small part of that national identity. Since its’ inception, the EU has conferred an increasing number of rights on EU nationals. Whilst I accept and enjoy the many advantages associated with the status of EU citizenship, it compliments rather than trumps my national identity. If the fundamental status of Member State nationals ever became citizenship of the EU, then the very idea of nationalism would come to an end. The status of EU the citizen, for me, remains primarily an economic one.

Danny Dagan

Would I see my EU citizenship as being a ‘fundamental status’ as compared to my UK nationality? I enjoy the ability (theoretical and practical) to live, study and work in other EU countries, as well as the possibility of retirement in another (warmer) EU Member State. It strikes me that a whole generation of citizens born into the Union, have grown up taking this ability for granted. Being a European is part of my identity, as I queue in the EU line for passport checks – but it may still have a way to go in terms of surpassing my national identity. I feel encouraged by the path EU law is taking, as shown by this essay. However, how far Union citizenship can go will depend not just on the law, but also on historical, cultural and political motivations within EU member states.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEGISLATION
Treaty on European Union

Treaty on the Functioning of The European Union

Directive 2004/38/EC

CASES
CJEU (Alphabetical)
Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-413/99

Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-60/00

Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres C-256/11

Garcia Avello v Belgian State C-148/02

Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve C-184/99

Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö C-224/02

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Kaur C-192/99

Rottman v Freistaat Bayern C-135/08

Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi C-34/09

McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-34/09

Sala v Freistaat Bayern C-85/96

Uecker and Jacquet (1997) ECR I-3171, C-64/96 and C-65/96

UK Courts
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Vitale and Amaral [1996] All ER 461

BOOKS
Barnard, C. 2013. The Substantive Law of The EU. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP

Everson, M. 1995. The Legacy of the Market Citizen in Shaw, J and More, G. eds. New Legal Dynamics of European Union. Oxford: OUP

Giubboni, S. A certain Degree of Solidarity. In Ross, M. Borgmann-Prebil Y eds. 2010. Promoting Solidarity in the European Union Oxford: OUP

Kostakpoulou, K. 2001. Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union. Between Past and Future. Manchester University Press.

Shaw, J. Citizenship, Free Movement, And the ‘Old’ Constitutionalism of the European Union in Craig, P. De Burca, G. 2011. The Evolution of EU Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP

Toner, H. 2004. Partnership Rights, Free Movement and EU Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing

Weatherill, S. 2007. Cases and materials on EU Law. 8th edn. Oxford: OUP

Weiler, J. 1996. European Citizenship and Human Rights in Winter J. A., Curtin, D, M., Kellerman, A, E., De Witte, B. (eds) Reforming the Treaty on European Union. The Legal Debate The Hague Boston: Kluwer International

JOURNALS
Hailbronner, K. quoted in Wollenschlager, F. 2011. A New Fundamental Freedom Beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shiftng the Economic Paradigm of European Integration. European Law Journal.

Hailbronner, M. Sanchez, S, I. 2011 The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status 5/4 Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law

Jacobs, F. 2007. Citizenship of the European Union— A Legal Analysis. European Law Journal. 13/5. Sep 2007

Kocehnov, D. 2011. A Real European Citizenship. The Columbia Journal of European Law 18

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. In Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2

Lansbergen, A. Miller, N. 2011. European Citizenship Rights in International Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? European Constitutional Law Review. 7/2

Moore, M. 2008. ‘Freedom of Movement and Migrant Workers’ Social Security: An Overview of The Court’s Jurisprudence 1992-1997. Common Market Law Review 35

O’Leary, S. 1999. Putting the Flesh on the Bones of European Citizenship. European law Review. 24/1

Wiesbrock, A. 2011. Disentangling the “Union Citizenship Puzzle”? The McCarthy Case. European Law Review. 36/6

Wiesbrock, A. 2012. Granting Citizenship-related rights to Third Country Nationals: An Alternative to the Full Extension of European Citizenship. European Journal of Migration and Law 14/1

OTHER SOURCES
Eurostat News Release 105/2012. 11 July 2013. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-11072012-AP/EN/3-11072012-AP-EN.PDF [Accessed 20 Mar 2014]

Lansbergen, A. Case Summary and Comment on Dereci’ (not dated) http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Dereci%20Case%20Summary%20and%20Comment.pdf [Accessed 21 Mar 2014]

The Daily Telegraph Newspaper Online Site, 14 Jan 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10570559/The-public-crave-a-crackdown-on-welfare-tourism.-But-are-they-deluded.html [Accessed 19 Mar 2014]

 

TFEU Article 20(1)

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p369

As noted by Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. In Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.234

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.235

Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve C-184/99


Eurostat News Release 105/2012 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-11072012-AP/EN/3-11072012-AP-EN.PDF accessed February 11, 2014

Barnard, C. 2013. The Substantive Law of The EU. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP p. 431

Kostakpoulou, K. 2001. Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union. Between Past and Future. Manchester University Press.

Barnard, C. 2013. The Substantive Law of The EU. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP p. 432

Weiler, J. 1996. European Citizenship and Human Rights in Winter J. A., Curtin, D, M., Kellerman, A, E., De Witte, B. (eds) Reforming the Treaty on European Union. The Legal Debate The Hague Boston: Kluwer International p. 65.

Everson, M. 1995. The Legacy of the Market Citizen in Shaw, J and More, G. eds. New Legal Dynamics of European Union. Oxford: OUP

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 369-396

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p383.

[1996] All ER 461

This under the CILFIT Rules (Case 238/81 Cilfit v Ministry of Health)

C-192/99 [2001] E.C.R. I-1237

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.244

Uecker and Jacquet (1997) ECR I-3171, C-64/96 and C-65/96

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.245

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p.383.

Jacobs, F. 2007. Citizenship of the European Union— A Legal Analysis. European Law Journal. 13/5. Sep 2007 p. 594.

C-85/96 Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] E.C.R. I-2691

Shaw, J. Citizenship, Free Movement, And the ‘Old’ Constitutionalism of the European Union in Craig, P. De Burca, G. 2011. The Evolution of EU Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP p. 586.

O’Leary, S. 1999. Putting the Flesh on the Bones of European Citizenship. European law Review. 24/1 p. 77.

O’Leary, S. 1999. Putting the Flesh on the Bones of European Citizenship. European law Review. 24/1 p. 77.

Moore, M. 2008. ‘Freedom of Movement and Migrant Workers’ Social Security: An Overview of The Court’s Jurisprudence 1992-1997. Common Market Law Review 35 409-47.

O’Leary, S. 1999. Putting the Flesh on the Bones of European Citizenship. European law Review. 24/1 p. 77.

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.247

Barnard, C. 2013. The Substantive Law of The EU. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP p. 459.

Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve C-184/99

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p. 252

C-184/99 [2001] ECR I-6193 [31]

Sala C-184/99 [2001] ECR I-6193 [32]

Weatherill, S. 2007. Cases and materials on EU Law. 8th edn. Oxford: OUP p. 493

COM [2001] 257 Final

Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-60/00

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p. 255

Giubboni, S. A certain Degree of Solidarity. In Ross, M. Borgmann-Prebil Y eds. 2010. Promoting Solidarity in the European Union Oxford: OUP p. 172

Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-413/99

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p. 257

Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-413/99 [84]

Barnard, C. 2013. The Substantive Law of The EU. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP p. 437

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p. 259

Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State C-148/02

Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö C-224/02

Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö C-224/02 Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs [22]

Toner, H. 2004. Partnership Rights, Free Movement and EU Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing p. 217.

European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, OJ 2004 L 158/77

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p. 261

Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern C-135/08

Hailbronner, M. Sanchez, S, I. 2011 The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status 5/4 Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law p. 498

Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern C-135/08 [42]

Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern C-135/08 [49]

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p. 371.

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p. 372.

i.e Rottmann would never have been a German citizen had he not once crossed the border from Austria.

Kocehnov, D. 2011. A Real European Citizenship. The Columbia Journal of European Law 18 p. 75

Kochenov, K and Plender, R. 2012. EU Citizenship: from an incipient form to an incipient substance? The discovery of the treaty text. European Law Review 37/4. 2012 p. 386.

Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi C-34/09

Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi C-34/09 [45] emphasis added

Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern C-135/08 [42]

Kocehnov, D. 2011. A Real European Citizenship. The Columbia Journal of European Law 18 p. 80

Kocehnov, D. 2011. A Real European Citizenship. The Columbia Journal of European Law 18 p. 84

Lansbergen, A. Miller, N. 2011. European Citizenship Rights in International Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? European Constitutional Law Review. 7/2 p. 306

Kocehnov, D. 2011. A Real European Citizenship. The Columbia Journal of European Law 18 p. 86

Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-34/09

Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres C-256/11

Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-34/09 [50]

Hailbronner, M. Sanchez, S, I. 2011 The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status 5/4 Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law p. 517

Wiesbrock, A. 2011. Disentangling the “Union Citizenship Puzzle”? The McCarthy Case. European Law Review. 36/6 p. 873

Lansbergen, A. Case Summary and Comment on Dereci’ http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Dereci%20Case%20Summary%20and%20Comment.pdf

Lansbergen, A. Case Summary and Comment on Dereci’ http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Dereci%20Case%20Summary%20and%20Comment.pdf

Hailbronner, M. Sanchez, S, I. 2011 The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status 5/4 Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law p. 499

Hailbronner, M. quoted in Wollenschlager, F. 2011. A New Fundamental Freedom Beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shiftng the Economic Paradigm of European Integration. European Law Journal. 17/1 p. 15

Kostakopoulou, K. 2005. Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change. Modern Law Review. 68/2 p.263

Wiesbrock, A. 2012. Granting Citizenship-related rights to Third Country Nationals: An Alternative to the Full Extension of European Citizenship. European Journal of Migration and Law 14/1 p. 67

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10570559/The-public-crave-a-crackdown-on-welfare-tourism.-But-are-they-deluded.html

 

One thought on “Eu Law Citizenship Essay

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *