Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:22:12.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twenty Years of CJEU Jurisprudence on Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot  and
Ngo Chun Luk

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The history of the European Union has been fraught with constant friction between the sovereignty of the Member States and the supranational powers of the Union, with the Union gaining terrain in fields of law traditionally belonging to the Member States. Despite this tension, certain legal fields are steadfastly asserted as belonging to the Member States. Notably, Member States regulate the grounds of the acquisition and loss of nationality. The Treaty of Lisbon highlights that the nationality of Member States is scarcely governed by European Union law, if at all. The sole provision governing the relationship between Member State nationality and Union law, i.e., Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stresses the primacy of Member State nationality.

Reality, however, is often not as simple as such a cursory reading implies. European Union citizenship, once a mere complementary facet of the national citizenships, has transformed into an institution in its own right, forming a symbiotic relationship between the Member State nationality and the European Union.

Type
Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 5: Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On , 01 August 2014 , pp. 821 - 834
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 20(1), May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 56 [hereinafter TFEU] (“Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.”) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

2 Treaty Establishing the European Community art. 8(1), Aug. 31, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 10.Google Scholar

3 Id. at Declaration No. 2. It is remarkable that this declaration is not included in the consolidated TEU or TFEU after Lisbon nor attached to these treaties.Google Scholar

4 Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v. Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, CJEU Case C-369/90, 1992 E.C.R. I-4239.Google Scholar

5 The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, CJEU Case C-192/99, 2001 E.C.R. I-1237.Google Scholar

6 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CJEU Case C-200/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925.Google Scholar

7 Micheletti, CJEU Case C-369/90 at paras. 2–6.Google Scholar

8 Id. at para. 10.Google Scholar

9 Id. at paras. 10–11. See Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, Case C-369/90, M. V. Micheletti and others v. Delegacion del Gobierno en Cantabria, Judgment of 7 July 1992, 30(3) Common Mkt. L. Rev. 623, 624–625 (1993).Google Scholar

10 Kaur, Case C-192/99 at paras. 11–15.Google Scholar

11 Id. at paras. 20–24.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 25.Google Scholar

13 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CJEU Case C-200/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925, paras. 7–12.Google Scholar

14 Id. at para. 15.Google Scholar

15 Id. at para. 19.Google Scholar

16 Id. at para. 25.Google Scholar

17 Id. at paras. 37–40.Google Scholar

18 Id.at para. 45.Google Scholar

19 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (ONEm), CJEU Case C-34/09, 2011 E.C.R. I-01177.Google Scholar

20 M. G. Eman and O. B. Sevinger v. College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag, CJEU Case C-300/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-08055.Google Scholar

21 Id. at para. 16.Google Scholar

22 Id. at paras. 27–28.Google Scholar

23 Id. at paras. 40–54.Google Scholar

24 Id. at paras. 56–60.Google Scholar

25 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, Case C-135/08, 2010 E.C.R. I-1449.Google Scholar

26 Id. at paras. 22–28; see also Jo Shaw, Setting the scene: the Rottmann case introduced, in Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law? 1 (2011).Google Scholar

27 Rottmann, CJEU Case C-135/08 at paras. 11–13.Google Scholar

28 Rottmann, CJEU Case C-135/08 at para. 42.Google Scholar

29 See Gerard-René de Groot & Anja Seling, The Consequences of the Rottmann Judgment on Member State Autonomy - The Court's Avant-Gardism in Nationality Matters, 7:1 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 138, 152 (2011).Google Scholar

30 Davies, Gareth T., The Entirely Conventional Supremacy of Union Citizenship and Rights, in Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law? 7 (Jo Shaw ed., 2011).Google Scholar

31 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, Case C-135/08, 2010 E.C.R. I-1449, paras. 43–45.Google Scholar

32 Id. at paras. 50–54.Google Scholar

33 Id. at para. 55.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 56.Google Scholar

35 Rottmann, CJEU Case C-135/08 at para. 28.Google Scholar

36 Id. at paras. 29–30.Google Scholar

37 See Luk, Ngo Chun, Het Nederlanderschap na Rottmann. Over de gevolgen van Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern voor de verliesbepalingen van de Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (2012) (unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Aruba, Oranjestad) (on file with author).Google Scholar

38 Gerard-René de Groot, Overwegingen over de Janko Rottmann-beslissing van het Europese Hof van Justitie, 5/6 Asiel- en Migratierecht 297 (2010).Google Scholar

39 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, CJEU Case C-34/09, 2011 E.C.R. I-1177.Google Scholar

40 Id. at paras. 40–42 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

41 See Luk, , supra note 37, at 22–23.Google Scholar

42 Zambrano, CJEU Case C-34/09 at paras. 43–44.Google Scholar

43 Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CJEU Case C-434/09, 2011 E.C.R. I-3375.Google Scholar

44 Murat Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, CJEU Case C-256/11, 2011 E.C.R. I-11315.Google Scholar

45 McCarthy, CJEU Case C-434/09 at paras. 49–50; see also id. at para. 68.Google Scholar

46 See Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 15(2), G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948); European Convention on Nationality art. 4(2), E.T.S. No. 166 (Nov. 6, 1997).Google Scholar

47 U.N. Secretary-General, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Rep. of the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/34 (Dec. 14, 2009).Google Scholar

48 See U.N. Secretary-General, supra note 47, at para 24; The Arab Charter of Human Rights (providing explicitly that “no one shall be arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of his nationality” (emphasis added). However, it should be noted that “arbitrary” deprivation also can extend to interference provided for by law.).Google Scholar

49 Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap, Overheid 628, http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003738/.Google Scholar

50 See, e.g., Gerard-René de Groot & Matjaz Tratnik, Nederlands Nationaliteitsrecht 119–123 (2010). Similarly, other Member States, such as the United Kingdom, allow for the voidance ab initio of the their nationality without a legal basis providing for such a loss.Google Scholar

51 Literally: No loss without previous law. Compare the nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali- principle in criminal law (literally: No punishment without previous criminal law).Google Scholar

52 Compare the restriction of the loss of Netherlands nationality by minors by an introduction of some exceptions in 2003 with retroactivity from 1985.Google Scholar

53 Literally: The time governs the fact.Google Scholar

54 L'acquisition et la perte de la nationalité française sont régies par la loi en vigueur au temps de l'acte ou du fait auquel la loi attache ces effets. Google Scholar

55 See also U.N. Secretary-General, supra note 47, at para 25 (remarking on “predictability”).Google Scholar

56 See U.N. Secretary-General, supra note 47, at para 21.Google Scholar

57 Id. at para. 43Google Scholar

58 Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

59 Id. at para. 25, 27.Google Scholar

60 See, e.g., Nationality Act art. 33 (Fin.).Google Scholar

61 From two years in France to fifteen years in Spain. Attention to the existing ties of the person concerned with the country is expressly mentioned in Article 33 of Finland's Nationality Act. In Portugal, the Nationality Act does not provide a time limit for a declaration of nullity of the entry in the register on which attribution or acquisition of nationality depends. However, in 2004 the Appeals Court decided in a case about a declaration of nullity initiated after 20 years from the entry in the register, that when the false registration is due to an error of the authorities, the principles of legal certainty and the prohibition of abuse of law would prevent the declaration of nullity. Acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Case 8640/2003-6 (Jan. 29, 2004) (Portugal).Google Scholar

62 In this sense, the official instruction on the application of article 14 of the Nationality Act of the Netherlands.Google Scholar

63 See Nationality Act art. 33 (Fin.).Google Scholar