THE ESSENCE OF EU CITIZENSHIP EMERGING FROM THE LAST TEN YEARS OF ACADEMIC DEBATE: BEYOND THE CHERRY BLOSSOMS AND THE MOON?1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2013
This article scrutinizes the last ten years of the academic debate on EU citizenship law taking nine fundamental disagreements among scholars as starting points. It explores EU citizenship's relationship with three groups of issues of fundamental importance, including the place of this concept within the fabric of EU law, the influence of this concept on the essence of the Union as a system of multi-level governance, and its impact on the lives of ordinary Europeans. A large number of key works which influenced the Court and the legislator in the recent years is assessed to outline the likely direction of future research, as well as EU citizenship's future development. Although the literature on the subject is overwhelmingly rich and diverse, this article aspires to provide a representative sample of issues of interest for the framing of the concept at issue from a supranational perspective, necessarily leaving national literatures aside.
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013
‘Of an infinite number of permissible subjects, cherry blossoms and the moon are traditionally held to be the most interesting.’ Makoto Ueda, Matsuo Bashō 74 (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1970).
2 Aron, R, ‘Is Multinational Citizenship Possible?’ (1974) 41 Social Research 638Google Scholar. For a very informative analysis of the connection existing between the concepts of citizenship and the nation-state, see Preuß, UK, ‘Problems of a Concept of European Citizenship’ (1995) 1 ELJ 271–3Google Scholar.
3 eg Case C–135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern  ECR I–1449; Case C–34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano Office national de l'emploi  ECR I–0000; Case C–127/08] Metock and Others  ECR I–6241; Case C–192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas  ECR I–10451; Case C–200/02 Zhu and Chen  ECR I–9925; Case C–256/11 Murat Dereçi, Vishaka Heiml, Alban Kokollari, Izunna Emmanuel Maduike & Dragica Stević v Bundesminister für Inneres  ECR I–0000. Several important cases to clarify the legal nature of EU citizenship further are currently pending in front of the Court. See eg Case C–356/11 O, S, OJ C 269/74 (2011); Case C–357/11 L., OJ C 269/75 (2011).
4 Schönberger, C, ‘European Citizenship as Federal Citizenship: Some Citizenship Lessons of Comparative Federalism’ (2007) 19 Revue européenne de droit public 61Google Scholar. See also Shaw, J, ‘Political Rights and Multilevel Citizenship in Europe’ in Guild, E, Groenendijk, K and Carrera, S (eds), Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU (Ashgate 2009) 29Google Scholar.
5 Shaw, J, ‘Citizenship: Contrasting Dynamics at the Interface of Integration and Constitutionalism’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), Evolution of EU Law (OUP 2011 2nd ed) 578Google Scholar.
7 While the limitations of such an exercise are obvious, given the sheer amount of the publications engaged with this topic in all the 23 languages of the Union, it is nevertheless possible to outline the most influential trends in the academic thought on EU citizenship during the last ten years.
8 The pivotal role played by EU citizenship in the Union today is not connected to the recent revisions of the Treaties. In fact, virtually all the recent developments in this vein have been rather inconsequential, if not a disappointment: Schrauwen, A, ‘European Citizenship in the Treaty of Lisbon: Any Change at All?’ (2008) 15 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change’ (2005) 68 ModLRev 261–2Google Scholar.
9 eg Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–168/91 Kostantinidis  ECR I–1191; Opinion of AG Léger in Case C–214/94 Boukhalfa  ECR I–2253; Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–224/02 Heikki Antero Pusa  ECR I–5763; Opinon of AG Jacobs in Case C–96/04 Standesamt Stadt Niebüll  ECR I–3561; Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government  ECR I–1683; Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000. Also the extrajudicial writings of the members of the Court play an important role in the academic debate. See, inter alia, Lenaerts, K, ‘“Civis europaeus sum”: From the Cross-Border Link to the Status of Citizen of the Union’ (2011) 3 Electronic Journal of the Free Movement of Workers in the European Community 6Google Scholar; J Kokott, ‘EU Citizenship—citoyens sans frontières?’ (2005) Durham European Law Institute, European Law Lecture, available at <http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/deli/annuallecture/2005_DELI_Lecture.pdf> (accessed 20 August 2012).
10 At the EU level see Directive 2004/38, OJ L 158/77, 2004; Carrera, S, ‘What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?’ 11 ELJ (2005) 711–18Google Scholar; Soriao, C, ‘Libre circulation et séjour dans l'UE: La directive 2004/38 au regard des droits de l'Homme’ (2005) 121 Journal des tribunaux, Droit européen 200Google Scholar; Elsmore, MJ and Starup, P, ‘Union Citizenship—Background, Jurisprudence, and Perspective: The Past, Present, and Future of Law and Policy’ (2007) 26 Yearbook of European Law 96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar. At the national level, see the country reports of the EUDO citizenship observatory of the European University Institute <http://eudo-citizenship.eu > .
11 The notion of European citizenship is older than the Maastricht Treaty: Kochenov, D and Plender, R, ‘EU Citizenship: From an Incipient Form to an Incipient Substance? The Discovery of the Treaty Text’ (2012) 37 ELR 369 (and the literature cited therein)Google Scholar.
13 Shaw, J, ‘Constitutional Settlements and the Citizen after the Treaty of Amsterdam’ in Neunreither, K and Wiener, A (eds), European Integration after Amsterdam: Institutional Dynamics and Prospects for Democracy (OUP 2000) 297Google Scholar.
14 cf JR Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (Simon and Schuster 1997).
15 A fair amount of short-sightedness played a role here too, however. To agree with Dora Kostakopoulou, ‘It is … unfortunate that much of the relevant literature in the 1990s did not recognize that the value of European citizenship existed not so much in what it was, but in what it ought to be’: Kostakopoulou (n 8) 263.
16 See the references throughout this article and also, inter alia; Sánchez, S Iglesias, ‘¿Hacia una nueva relación entre la nationalidad estatal y la ciudadanía europea?’ (2010) 37 Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 933Google Scholar; Marguery, T, ‘La citoyénneté européenne joue-t-elle un role dans l’éspace penal de liberté, de sécurité et de justice?’ (2010) CDE 387Google Scholar; Shaw, J, ‘The Constitutional Development of Citizenship in the EU Context: With or without the Treaty of Lisbon’ in Pernice, I and Tanchev, E (eds), Ceci n'est pas une Constitution – Constitutionalism without a Constitution? (Nomos 2009) 104Google Scholar; Groussot, X, ‘“Principled Citizenship” and Process of European Constitutionalisation – From a Pie in the Sky to a Sky with Diamonds’ in Bernitz, U et al (eds), General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development (Kluwer 2008) 315Google Scholar; Somek, A, ‘Solidarity Decomposed: Being and Time in European Citizenship’ (2007) 32 ELR 787Google Scholar; Bauböck, R, ‘Why European Citizenship? Normative Approaches to Supranational Union’ (2007) 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 452CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dougan, M, ‘The Constitutional Dimension to the Case Law on Union Citizenship’ (2006) 31 ELR 613Google Scholar; Kadelbach, S, ‘Union Citizenship’ in A von Bogdandy and Bast, J (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Hart 2006) 453Google Scholar.
18 These included ‘Market citizenship’; ‘Civic republican European citizenship’; ‘Deliberative European citizenship’; ‘Corrective European citizenship’; and ‘Constructive European citizenship’: Kostakopoulou ibid 238–43. Many more theoretical approaches to citizenship are available, which could potentially be utilized also in the context of EU citizenship analysis. See eg L Bosniak, ‘Citizenship Denationalised’ (2000) 7 IndJGlobalLegalStud 477; K Rubinstein and D Adler, ‘International Citizenship: The Future of Nationality in a Globalised World’ (2000) 7 IndJGlobalLegalStud 522. For the analysis of the different approaches in the context of EU citizenship see eg P Mindus, ‘Europeanisation of Citizenship within the EU: Perspectives and Ambiguities’ (2008) Università degli Studi di Trento Working Paper WP SS, No 2.
19 eg Case C–184/99 Grzelczyk  ECR I–6193; Case C–224/98 D'Hoop  ECR I–6191; Case C–413/99 Baumbast and R.  ECR I–7091; Case C–224/02 Pusa  ECR I–5763.
20 Case C–85/96 Martínez Sala  ECR I–2691; Case C–184/99 Grzelczyk  ECR I–6193; Case C–413/99; Case C–456/02 Trojani  ECR I–7573. See, in general, Davies, G, Nationality Discrimination in the European Internal Market (Kluwer 2003)Google Scholar; K Lenaerts, ‘Union Citizenship and the Principle of Non-Discrimination on the Grounds of Nationality’ in Festskrift til Claus Gulmann (Thomson 2006).
21 Case C–192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas  ECR I–10451; Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C–224/02 Pusa  ECR I–5763; Jacobs, F, ‘Citizenship of the European Union – A Legal Analysis’ (2007) 13 ELJ 591CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov, D, ‘Free Movement and Participation in the Parliamentary Elections in the Member State of Nationality: An Ignored Link?’ (2009) 16 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Case C–135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern  ECR I–1449; Case C–34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l'emploi  ECR I–0000; Case C–256/11 Dereci  ECR I–0000; Lenaerts (n 9); Kochenov, D, ‘A Real European Citizenship; A New Jurisdiction Test; A Novel Chapter in the Development of the Union in Europe’ (2011) 18 ColumJEurL 55Google Scholar; Van Elsuwege, P, ‘Shifting the Boundaries? European Union Citizenship and the Scope of Application of EU Law’ (2011) 38 LIEI 263Google Scholar.
23 On the legitimacy of the use of federal terminology in the legal context of the EU see inter alia Schütze, R, ‘On “Federal” Ground: The European Union as an (Inter)National Phenomenon’ (2009) 46 CMLRev 1069Google Scholar.
24 Case C–135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern  ECR I–1449; G-R de Groot, ‘Overwegingen over de Janko Rottmann-beslissing van het Europese Hof van Justitie’ Asiel & migrantenrecht (2010) 293; Kochenov, D, ‘Annotation of Case C–135/08 Rottmann’ (2010) 47 CMLRev 1831Google Scholar; J Shaw (ed), ‘Has the European Court of Justice Challenged the Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law?’ (2011) EUI Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Paper No 62.
25 Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000; van der Mei, AP, van den Bogaert, SCG, and de Groot, G-R, ‘De arresten Ruiz Zambrano en McCarthy’ (2011) 4 NTER 187Google Scholar; Ankersmit, L and Geursen, W, ‘Ruiz Zambrano: De interne situatie voorbij’ (2011) 4 Asiel & migrantenrecht 156Google Scholar; P Van Elsuwege (n 22); Sánchez, S Iglesias, ‘El assunto Ruiz Zambrano: Una nueva aproximación del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión europea a la ciudadanía de la Unión’ (2011) 24 Revista general de derecho europeo 382Google Scholar.
26 For an analysis see Kochenov, D, ‘The Right to Have What Rights? EU Citizenship in Need of Clarification’ 18 ELJ (2013 forthcoming)Google Scholar.
27 Williams, A, ‘Taking Values Seriously: Towards a Philosophy of EU Law’ (2009) 20 OJLS 549CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, A, The Ethos of Europe (CUP 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an informative perspective, see Neyer, J, ‘Justice, Not Democracy in the European Union’ (2010) 48 JComMarSt 903Google Scholar; Neyer, J, ‘Who Is Afraid of Justice? A Rejoinder to Danny Nicol’ (2012) 50 JComMarSt 523Google Scholar.
28 Weiler, JHH, ‘Individual and Rights: The Sour Grapes (Editorial)’ (2010) 21 EJILGoogle Scholar. See also Weiler, JHH, ‘Europa: “Nous coalisons des Etats nous n'unissons pas des hommes”’ in Cartabia, M and Simoncini, A (eds), La Sostenibilità della democrazia nel XXI secolo (Il Mulino 2009) 51Google Scholar.
30 eg Kochenov, D, ‘Ius Tractum of Many Faces: European Citizenship and the Difficult Relationship between Status and Rights’ (2009) 15 ColumJEurL 181–93Google Scholar.
31 G Tesauro, Diritto comunitario (5th edn, CEDAM; Wolters Kluwer Italia 2008) 480 [author's translation: ‘At the moment the Community notion of citizenship does not exist, not even hypothetically, given that the norms requiring its possession as a subjective condition for their application in reality refer to the national law of the State whose nationality turns into the basis of the invoked right.’]
32 Besselink, L and Reestman, JH, ‘Dynamics of European and National Citizenship: Inclusive or Exclusive? (Editorial)’ (2007) 3 EuConst 2Google Scholar.
33 Ibid. See, similarly, Richard Bellamy: ‘[EU citizenship] facilitates cooperation between citizens of the member states and their access to citizenship of another member state, but does very little to create a distinctive attachment to the EU itself’: Bellamy, R, ‘Evaluating Union Citizenship: Belonging, Rights and Participation within the EU’ (2008) 12 Citizenship Studies 598CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 The ECJ traditionally disallows making any distinctions between Member State nationalities on the ground of how they were acquired: Case 136/78 Ministère public v Auer  ECR 437, para 28; Case C–369/90 Micheletti  ECR I–4239, para 10; Case C–200/02 Zhu and Chen  ECR I–9925; Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000.
35 Kochenov (n 30) 181; P Dollat, ‘La citoyenneté européenne: Théorie et statuts’ (Bruylant 2008) 95–104.
36 Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C–135/08, Rottmann  ECR I–1449, para 23 (emphasis added) [author's translation: ‘Union citizenship assumes nationality of a Member State but it is also a legal and political concept independent of that of nationality.’].
37 Case C–135/08, Rottmann  ECR I–1449, para 42.
38 Kochenov (n 24) 1833; Davies, G, ‘The Entirely Conventional Supremacy of Union Citizenship and Rights’ in Shaw, J (ed), Has the European Court of Justice Challenged the Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law? (EUI Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Paper No 62 (2011))Google Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D, ‘European Union Citizenship and Member State Nationality: Updating or Upgrading the Link’ in Shaw, J (ed), Has the European Court of Justice Challenged the Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law? (EUI Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Paper No 62 (2011))Google Scholar.
39 Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, para 44; Kochenov (n 22); L Azoulai, ‘La citoyenneté européenne, un statut d'intégration sociale’ in Mélanges Jean Paul Jacqué: Chemins d'Europe (Dalloz 2010); Golynker, O, ‘European Union as a Single Working-Living Space: EU Law and New Forms of Intra-Community Migration’ in Halpin, A and Roeben, V (eds), Theorising the Global Legal Order (Hart 2009) 145Google Scholar;
40 D Kochenov, ‘Rounding up the Circle: The Mutation of Member States’ Nationalities under Pressure from EU Citizenship’ EUI Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Paper No 23/2010. For a meticulous analysis of EU citizenship rights, including those functioning in parallel with the rights granted by Member State nationalities see Dollat (n 35) 249–300.
41 Palombella, G, ‘Whose Europe? After the Constitution: A Goal-Based Citizenship’ (2005) 3 Int'l J. Const. L. 377Google Scholar (also referring to Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Knopf 1999)).
43 Section IVA infra.
47 This can happen either through granting such persons the formal status of EU citizenship in the future, or through providing them with a set of rights comparable to those enjoyed by EU citizens: Lansbergen, A and Shaw, J, ‘National Membership Models in a Multilevel Europe’ (2010) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maas, W, ‘Migrants, States, and EU Citizenship's Unfulfilled Promise’ (2008) 12 Citizenship Studies 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov (n 40) 29–33; Kostakopoulou, D, Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union: Between Past and Future (Manchester University Press 2001) 79Google Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D ‘EU Citizenship: Writing the Future’ (2007) 13 ELJ 623CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a magisterial account of the legal migration into the EU see A Wiesbrock, Legal Migration to the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff 2010).
48 Balibar, É, Nous, citoyens d'Europe: Les frontières, l’État, le peuple (La Découverte 2001) 190–1Google Scholar.
49 Kochenov and Plender (n 11): the codification of the pre-existing informal status by the Treaty of Maastricht failed to seriously affect the legal edifice of the Union for roughly 20 years—it is only with Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano that the Court seems to be starting to discover the far-reaching potential of EU citizenship.
51 See Kochenov, D, ‘European Union's Minority Protection’, in Kymlicka, W and Boulden, J (eds), International Approaches to Governing Ethnic Diversity (OUP 2013, forthcoming)Google Scholar.
52 For an illuminating historical account see W Maas, Creating European Citizens (Rowman & Littlefield 2007). Limited free movement rights granted to third-country nationals who are long-term residents by Directive 2003/109 (OJ L 16/44, 2004) do not solve any outstanding problems: Wiesbrock, A, ‘Free Movement of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union: The Illusion of Exclusion’ (2010) 35 ELR 455Google Scholar; Kochenov (n 30) 286; Skordas, A, ‘Immigration and the Market: The Long-Term Residents Directive’ (2006) 13 ColumJEurL 201Google Scholar.
54 This issue will be further assessed in Section IVA below.
56 TFEU Preamble, recital 1.
57 See Kapteyn, P, The Stateless Market: The European Dilemma of Integration and Civilization (Routledge 1995)Google Scholar.
59 Wollenschläger, F, ‘A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and Its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration’ (2011) 17 ELJ 34Google Scholar.
66 Weiler, JHH, ‘Bread and Circus: The State of the European Union’ (1998) 4 ColumJEurL 231Google Scholar.
70 Weiler, JHH, ‘Europa: “Nous coalisons des Etats nous n'unissons pas des hommes”’ in Cartabia, M and Simoncini, A (eds), La Sostenibilità della democrazia nel XXI secolo (Il Mulino 2009) 51Google Scholar.
71 Kochenov, D, ‘Citizenship without Respect: The EU's Troubled Equality Ideal’ (2010) Jean Monnet Working Paper (NYU Law School) 08/10, 74–84Google Scholar.
72 The same seems to hold for the concept of liberty, scrutinized by Richard Bellamy: R Bellamy, ‘The Liberty of the Post-Moderns?: Market and Civic Freedom within the EU’ (2009) LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper No 01/2009.
74 Williams claims that the EU is based more on the founders’ intent, than on a substantive idea of justice: Williams, ‘Taking Values Seriously: Towards a Philosophy of EU Law’ (n 27) 549.
76 Williams (2009) ‘Taking Values Seriously: Towards a Philosophy of EU Law’ (n 27) 568–9. For more examples see Kochenov (n 71); Arnull, A, ‘The Rule of Law in the European Union’ in Arnull, A and Wincott, D (eds), Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union (OUP 2002) 241Google Scholar; de Búrca, G, ‘The Role of Equality in European Community Law’ in Dashwood, A and O'Leary, S (eds), The Principle of Equal Treatment in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell 1997) 13Google Scholar.
77 Weiler (n 70) 54 [author's translation: ‘today we accumulate the rhetoric of values, at the same time either giving them little importance in the operating parts of the Treaties, or allowing ambiguity prevail’].
79 ibid 558–70. See also Joseph Weiler's unpublished paper on the subject ‘On the Distinction between Values and Virtues in the Process of European Integration’. For the particular citizenship context see Kuisma, M, ‘Rights of Privileges? The Challenge of Globalisation to the Values of Citizenship’ (2008) 12 Citizenship Studies 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
82 G Davies, ‘Services, Citizenship, and the Country of Origin Principle’, Mitchell Working Paper (Edinburgh) No 2/2007.
87 Most recently, in Case C–300/04 Eman and Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag  ECR I–8055. See Besselink's, ‘Annotation’ in 45 CMLRev 806–8 (2008); Kochenov, D, ‘The Puzzle of Citizenship and Territory in the EU: On European Rights Overseas’ (2010) 17 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
88 Kochenov (n 30) 197. In general see Shaw, J, The Transformation of Citizenship in the European Union: Electoral Rights and the Restructuring of Political Space (CUP 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zincone, G and Ardovino, S, ‘I diritti elettorali dei migranti nello spazio politico e giuridico europeo’, (2004) 5 Le Istituzioni del Federalismo 741Google Scholar; Shaw, J, ‘Alien Suffrage in the European Union’ (2003) 12 The Good Society 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
90 Weiler (n 70) 82 [author's translation: ‘the problematic aspect of this case law is precisely that it avoids making a conceptual transition from the free movement based on economic considerations to a freedom based on citizenship’]. Weiler comes to this conclusion based on the analysis of the political side of the essence of citizenship, but the same holds, as has been demonstrated above, also for the analysis evolving around the principle of equality. See also Maduro, MP, ‘Europe's Social Self: “The Sickness unto Death”’, in Shaw, J (ed), Social Law and Policy in an Evolving European Union (Hart 2000) 340Google Scholar.
93 Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘The Outer Limits of EU Citizenship; Displacing Economic Free Movement Rights?’ in Barnard, C and Odudu, O (eds), The Outer Limits of European Union Law (Hart 2009) 168Google Scholar.
94 Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, para 41.
95 This is the amount of EU citizens currently residing in the Member State other than their Member State of nationality. This amount includes economic and non-economic migrants. In pre-citizenship times not all these persons would be covered by EU law. The data is from: Vasileva, K, ‘Population and Social Conditions’ (2009) Eurostat Statistics in Focus 94/2009, 3Google Scholar.
96 Spaventa, E, ‘Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects’ (2008) 45 CMLRev 13Google Scholar.
97 eg Joined cases C–64/96 & C–65/96 Uecker and Jacquet  ECR I–3171, para 23; Case C–148/02 Garcia Avello  ECR I–11613, para 26. For a critical assessment of this approach in the light of Rottmann see Kochenov (n 24).
99 If such context can at all be distilled.
101 eg Case C–152/03 Ritter-Coulais  ECR I–1711. See also Case C–227/03 AJ van Pommeren-Bourgondiën  ECR I–6101; Case C–287/05 Hendrix  ECR I–6909; Case C–213/05 Geven  ECR I–6347; Case C–212/05 Hartmann  ECR I–6303.
102 C O'Brian, ‘Annotation of Case C–212/05 Hartmann, Case C–213/05 Geven, Case C–287/05 Hendrix’ (2008) 45 CMLRev 499.
104 O'Brien (n 102) 505. This position is very similar to the one expressed by AG Geelhoed in Cases C–212/05 Hartmann  ECR I–6303 and C–213/05 Geven  ECR I–6347.
105 O'Brien, C, ‘Real Links, Abstract Rights and False Alarms: The Relationship between the ECJ's “Real Link” Case Law and National Solidarity’ (2008) 33 ELR 654Google Scholar.
106 For more on the ECJ's approach to jurisdiction in the context of EU citizenship see Section IVC below.
107 The Tryfonidou/O'Brien vision seems to be based on too narrow a vision of the Internal Market: Kochenov and Plender (n 11).
109 For a compelling analysis of ultra vires engagements of the ECJ and the national courts see Craig, Paul, ‘The ECJ and Ultra Vires Action: A Conceptual Analysis’ (2011) 48 CMLRev 395Google Scholar.
110 Golynker (n 39) 151. See also Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C–287/05 DPW Hendrix v Raad van Bestuur van het Iutvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen  ECR I–6909.
111 Art. 26(2) TFEU.
114 eg Case C–209/03 Bidar  ECR I–211.
115 Case C–213/05 Geven  ECR I–6347.
116 Case C–212/05 Hartmann  ECR I–6303.
117 See also Section VB below.
118 S O'Leary, ‘Developing an Ever Closer Union between the Peoples of Europe?’(2008) Mitchell Working Paper (Edinburgh) 6/2008, 15–24. See also Golynker (n 39) 153–6.
120 This issue is directly related to the interpretation of the derivative nature of the EU citizenship concept discussed above.
122 HU Jessurun d'Oliveira (2010) Ontkoppeling van nationaliteit 785; HU Jessurun d'Oliveira, ‘Nationaliteit en de Europese Unie’ in Ongebogen recht: Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. H. Meijers (Sdu 1998) 80–1.
123 HU Jessurun d'Oliveira, ‘Case Note 1. Decoupling Nationality and Union Citizenship?’ (2011) 7 EuConst 139.
124 Case C–135/08, Rottmann  ECR I–1449, para 59. The case concerned, specifically, the loss of a Member State nationality and, consequently, of EU citizenship.
125 Following Gareth Davies, to separate the rules on loss and acquisition of nationality would be ‘highly illogical and inequitable’: Davies (n 38). Indeed, separating the acquisition from the loss of citizenship in the eyes of EU law would seemingly lead to a paradoxical conclusion that fundamental principles of EU law should only be safeguarded when EU citizenship is lost and not when it is being acquired. Without any doubt we will soon have more case law on this matter.
128 Case C–369/90 Micheletti  ECR I–4239.
131 Kostakopoulou (2011) European Court of Justice; Kochenov (n 30) 182–6 (and the literature cited therein).
132 Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Definition of the Term ‘Nationals’, 22 Jan 1972, 1972 OJ (L 73) 196; New Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Definition of the Term ‘Nationals’, 28 Jan 1983, 1983 OJ (C23) 1. For analysis see de Groot (n 121) para 4.
133 Plender, R, ‘An Incipient Form of European Citizenship’ in Jacobs, FG (ed) European Law and the Individual (North-Holland 1976) 39Google Scholar.
135 Dr. Rottmann lost his German nationality by the decision of the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) that opined that such loss would be in full compliance with the EU principle of proportionality: German Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 5 C 12.10. For more on the proportionality conditions in this case see eg Cambien, N, ‘Case C–125/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern’, 17 ColumJEurL (2011) 386–91Google Scholar; Kochenov (n 24).
138 For an analysis at a meta-level see Bogdandy, A von and Bast, J, ‘The European Union's Vertical Order of Competences: The Current Law and Proposals for Reform’ (2002) 39 CMLRev 227Google Scholar.
140 Kochenov, D, ‘Double Nationality in the EU: An Argument for Tolerance’ (2011) 17 ELJ 330Google Scholar.
142 An important exception, which provides a mild counter-current to the generally observable trend, is the case law on the deportations of EU citizens. In a series of recent cases the ECJ seemingly succeeded in watering down the protections against deportations of long-term resident EU nationals, going against the letter and the spirit of the Directive 2004/38, in particular its art 28. See eg Case C–348/09 P.I.  ECR I–0000, paras 28–29; Case C–145/09 Tsakouridis  ECR I–11979, para 47. For criticism, see annotation by D Kochenov and B Pirker in ColumJEurL (2013, forthcoming).
143 This is so notwithstanding the fact that EU law as it stands does not prohibit the Member States from including EU citizens on foreigners’ registers: Case C–524/06 Huber v Germany  ECR I–9705. Analysed by Hailbronner, K, ‘Are Union Citizens Still Foreigners?’ in Minderhoud, P and Trimikliniotis, N (eds), Rethinking the Free Movement of Workers: The European Challenges Ahead (Wolf Legal Publishers 2009)Google Scholar.
147 There have been several authoritative calls in the literature concerning the necessity to think about granting the EU such power. eg Evans, AC, ‘Nationality Law and the Free Movement of Persons in the EEC: With Special Reference to the British Nationality Act 1981’ (1980) 2 Yearbook of European Law 189Google Scholar; Blumann, C, ‘La citoyenneté de l'Union européenne (bientôt dix ans): Espoir et désillusion’ in Epping, V, Fischer, H and Heintschel, W von Heinegg (eds), Brücken Bauen und Begehen: Festschrift für Knut Ipsen zum 65 Geburtstag (CH Beck 2000) 3Google Scholar.
155 Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move on?’ (2002) 39 CMLRev 731Google Scholar.
156 P Van Elsuwege and S Adam, ‘Situtations purement internes, discriminations à rebours et collectivités autonomes après l'arrêt sur l'Assurances soins flamande’ (2008) Cahiers de droit européen 655.
158 Geelhoed, LA, ‘De vrijheid van personenverkeer en de interne situatie: maatschappelijke dynamiek en juridische rafels’ in Manunza, E and Senden, L (eds), De EU: De interstatelijkheid voorbij? (Wolf Legal Publishers 2006) 49Google Scholar; Slynn, Lord Gordon, Introducing a European Legal Order (Stevens and Sons 1992) 99Google Scholar.
160 Section IIIB above.
161 For discussion see Tryfonidou (2009) ‘Reverse Discrimination in EC Law’ (Kluwer 2009) 158.
163 eg Case C–403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V  ECR I–6421, para 22.
165 eg Case C–413/99 Baumbast  ECR I–7091; C–200/02 Zhu and Chen  ECR I–9925; Case C–403/03 Schempp  ECR I–6421, para 22; Case C–287/05 Hendrix  ECR I–6909; Case C–213/05 Geven  ECR I–6347; Case C–212/05 Hartmann  ECR I–6303.
167 Case C–200/02 Zhu and Chen  ECR I–9925.
168 Case C–403/03 Schempp  ECR I–6421.
169 Case C–148/02 Garcia Avello  ECR I–11613.
171 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government  ECR I–1683; Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000.
172 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–212/96 Government of the French Community  ECR I–1683, paras 143–144.
174 Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C–434/09, McCarthy  ECR I–0000, para 61.
175 Nic Shuibhne (n 175); Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, 139.
179 Case C–135/08, Rottmann  ECR I–1449; Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000; Case C– 434/09 McCarthy  ECR I–0000; Case C–256/11 Dereci  ECR I–0000. For analysis, see eg Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘Annotation of Case C–434/09 McCarthy and Case C–256/11 Dereci’ (2012) 49 CMLRev 176Google Scholar; Adam, S and Van Elsuwege, P, ‘Citizenship Rights and the Federal Balance between the European Union and the Member States’ (2012) 37 ELR 176Google Scholar; Wiesbrock, A, ‘Disentangling the “Union Citizenship Puzzle”? The McCarthy Case’ (2011) 36 ELR 861Google Scholar; Kochenov (n 22); Van Elsuwege (n 22); Elsuwege, P Van, ‘European Union Citizenship and the Purely Internal Rule Revisited’ 7 (2011) EuConst 208Google Scholar; Kay Hailbronner and Daniel Thym, ‘Annotation of Case C–34/09 Ruiz Zambrano’ (2011) 48 CMLRev 1253; Kochenov (n 24).
181 Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs (Editorial)’ 36 EurLRev 161 (2011)Google Scholar.
185 Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, para 42 (emphasis added).
189 Case C–434/09, McCarthy  ECR I–0000, para 53; Case C–135/08, Rottmann  ECR I–1449, para 42; Case C–34/09, Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, para 42.
190 Starting with S O'Leary, who published the first comprehensive monograph on EU citizenship: S O'Leary, The Evolving Concept of Community Citizenship (1996) 273–8. See also, inter alia, by Nic Shuibhne (n 175) 731; White, RCA., ‘Free Movement, Equal Treatment and Citizenship of the Union’ (2005) 4 ICLQ 885CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spaventa (n 96) 13; Tryfonidou, A, ‘Reverse Discrimination in Purely Internal Situations: An Incongruity in a Citizens’ Europe’ (2008) 35 LIEI 44Google Scholar; Iliopoulou, A, ‘Libre circulation et non-discrimination, elements du statut de citoyen de l'Union européenne’ (Bruylant, 2008) 267Google Scholar; Kochenov (n 30) 234; Tryfonidou, A, Reverse Discrimination in EC Law (Kluwer 2009) 129Google Scholar; Kochenov (n 71) 80; Van Elsuwege (n 22).
192 Section IB above.
193 Dougan, M and Spaventa, E, ‘“Wish You Weren't Here …” New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union’ in Spaventa, E and Dougan, M (eds), Social Welfare and EU Law (Hart 2005) 181Google Scholar.
194 ibid 182. See also GS Katrougalos, ‘The (Dim) Perspectives of European Social Citizenship’ (2007) Jean Monnet Working Paper (NYU) 05/08.
195 Barnard, C, ‘EU Citizenship and the Principle of Solidarity’ in Spaventa, E and Dougan, M (eds), Social Welfare and EU Law (Hart 2005) 157Google Scholar. See also R O'Gorman, ‘The Proportionality Principle and Union Citizenship’, (2009) Mitchell Working Paper (Edinburgh) 1/2009 4-11; Wind, M, ‘Post-National Citizenship in Europe: The EU as a “Welfare Rights Generator?”’ (2009) 15 ColumJEurL 239Google Scholar.
197 S Maillard, ‘L’émergence de la citoyenneté sociale européenne’ (Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille 2008) 65–80.
199 While Sandrine Maillard, among numerous other scholars, seems to presume the non-application of the provision to third-country nationals (ibid 333–5), more progressive accounts are also available: P Boeles, ‘Europese burgers en derdelanders: Wat betekent het verbod van discriminatie naar nationaliteit sinds Amsterdam?’ (2005) 12 Sociaal-economische wetgeving 502; Epiney, A, ‘The Scope of Article 12 EC: Some Remarks on the Influence of European Citizenship’ (2007) 13 ELJ 611CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C Hublet, ‘The Scope of Article 12 of the Treaty of the European Communities vis-à-vis Third-Country Nationals: Evolution at Last?’ (2009 15 ELJ 757; Kochenov (n 30) 206–9.
200 An interesting situation, especially concerning posted workers, arose in the field of free movement of services and also in free movement of companies. See eg Belavusau, U, ‘The Case of Laval in the Contest of the Post-Enlargement EC Law Development’ (2008) 9 GLJ 2279Google Scholar (and the literature cited therein). The issue virtually hijacked scholarly attention for a while.
203 Thym, D, ‘Towards “Real” Citizenship? The Judicial Construction of Union Citizenship and its Limits’ in Adams, M et al. (eds), Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice Examined (Hart 2013, forthcoming)Google Scholar.
204 M Keating, ‘Social Citizenship, Solidarity and Welfare in Regionalised and Plurinational States’ (2009) 13 Citizenship Studies 506–10.
205 Dougan, M, ‘A Spectre Is Haunting Europe … Free Movement of Persons and Eastern Enlargement’ in Hillion, C (ed), EU Enlargement: A Legal Approach (Hart 2004) 112Google Scholar.
206 On ‘social dumping’ and enlargement see eg D Kukovec, ‘Whose Social Europe?’ (2011) IGL&P Paper No 3 Harvard Law School; Belavusau (n 200).
208 Keating ibid 506. Looking at the practical functioning of the social assistance systems, Keating thus entirely disagrees with the generally held view, espoused, inter alia by Richard Bellamy, that ‘welfare rights tend to be best protected in unitary, parliamentary systems where a strong and cohesive demos provides the social solidarity needed to allow legislative majority's [sic] to pass redistributive measures’: Bellamy, R, ‘The European Constitution Is Dead, Long Live European Constitutionalism’ 13 Constellations 185 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
212 Case C–209/03 Bidar  ECR I–2119; Golynker, O, ‘Student Loans: The European Concept of Social Justice According to Bidar’ (2006) 31 ELR 390Google Scholar.
213 Case C–158/07, Jacqueline Förster v IB-Groep  ECR I–8507.
214 Mei, AP van der, ‘Union Citizenship and the Legality of Durational Residence Requirements for Entitlement to Student Financial Aid’ 16 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2009) 477Google Scholar; Mataija, M, ‘Case C–158/07, Jacqueline Förster v IB-Groep – Student Aid and Discrimination of Non-Nationals: Clarifying or Emaciating Bidar?’ (2009) 15 ColumJEurL 59Google Scholar.
216 Moreover, crucially, such ‘protection’ of the social security systems always works only one way, benefiting exclusively the richer states in the Union (and their residents), while ensuring a strict separation between the richer and poorer parts, as Damjan Kukovec (n 206) has brilliantly demonstrated in the only serious legal paper on the issue to date: Whose Social Europe?
219 ‘In a mythical system causality is artificial, false; but it creeps, so to speak through the back door of Nature’ R Barthes, Mythologies (trans Annette Lavers) (Farrar, Starus and Giroux 1972) 131.
221 Renan, Ernst, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? et autres essais politiques (Agora 1992) [1st edn 1882] 41.
222 See on the patriotic sacrifice eg Walzer, M, ‘Civility and Civic Virtue in Contemporary America’ (1974) 41 Social Research 4Google Scholar.
224 Sala, V Della ‘Political Myth, Mythology and the European Union’ (2010) 48 JCMS 1Google Scholar.
225 Elsmore and Starup (2007) ‘Union Citizenship’, 61.
227 Weiler, JHH, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo: Europe's Constitutional Sonderweg’ in Weiler, JHH and Wind, M (eds), European Constitutionalism beyond the State (CUP 2003) 7Google Scholar.
229 See also Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Political Alchemies, Identity Games and the Sovereign Debt Instability: European Identity in Crisis or the Crisis in Identity-Talk?’ (2012) 63 RevIntlAff 97Google Scholar; D. Kochenov, ‘Mevrouw de Jong Gaat Eten: EU Citizenship and the Culture of Prejudice’ (2011) EUI Working Paper RSCAS 20011/06.
236 K Nicolaïdes, The New Constitution as European Demoi–cracy? (2003) The Federal Trust for Education and Research No 38/03; Weiler ibid.
239 For the criticism of Bryce's work see eg A Vermeule ‘Government by Public Opinion: Bryce's Theory of the Constitution’ (2011) Harvard Public Law Working Paper No 11-13.
244 Around 80 per cent do not share the ideal in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria and the former Eastern Germany: ibid.
246 On the specificity of Estonian case of legalized discrimination of non-citizen minorities see Poleshchuk, V (ed), A Chance to Survive: Minority Rights in Estonia (Foundation for Historical Outlook 2009)Google Scholar.
247 At least as far as it requires ensuring non-discrimination on the basis of nationality.
250 Palombella (n 41); Kymlicka, W, ‘Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice’ in Benhabib, SAnother Cosmopolitanism (OUP 2006) 134Google Scholar. See also Davies, G ‘Humiliation of the State as a Constitutional Tactic’ in Amtenbrink, F and Bergh, P van den (eds), The Constitutional Integrity of the European Union (TMC Asser Press 2010)Google Scholar.
253 Weiler, JHH, ‘Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: Common Standards and Conflicting Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space’ in Kastoryano, R and Emmanuel, S (eds), An Identity for Europe: The Relevance of Multiculturalism in EU Constitution (Palgrave Macmillan 2009) 78Google Scholar.
254 Christian Joppke makes a compelling case for the finding that ‘the national particularisms, which immigrants and ethnic minorities are asked to accept across European states are but local versions of the universalistic idiom of liberal democracy’: Joppke, C, ‘Immigration and the Identity of Citizenship: The Paradox of Universalism’ (2008) 12 Citizenship Studies 542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
256 According to AG Poiares Maduro, ‘Citizenship of the Union must encourage Member States to no longer conceive of the legitimate link of integration only within the narrow bonds of the national community, but also within the wider context of the society of peoples of the Union’: Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C–499/06 Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie  ECR 3993, para 23 (emphasis added).
257 For an overview and analysis, see R Bauböck and C Joppke (eds), ‘How Liberal Are Citizenship Tests?’ (2010) EUI RSCAS Working Paper 2010/41; Oers, R van, Ersbøll, E and Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Mapping the Redefinition of Belonging in Europe’ in Oers, R van, Ersbøll, E and Kostakopoulou, D (eds), A Re-definition of Belonging? (Koninklijke Brill 2010) 307Google Scholar; Joppke, C, ‘Beyond National Models: Civic Integration Policies for Immigrants in Western Europe’ (2007) 30 West European Politics 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
260 This disagreement might be caused by the idealistic vision of the ‘integration’ systems of the Member States. For a first-hand (critical) account of a Dutch culture test, for instance, see Kochenov (n 229).
261 AG Jacobs explained the mechanics of this function of EU citizenship in his Opinion in Case C–148/02 Garcia Avello  ECR I–11613, at para 63 (footnotes omitted): ‘The concept of “moving and residing freely in the territory of the Member States” is not based on the hypothesis of a single move from one Member State to another, to be followed by integration into the latter. The intention is rather to allow free, and possibly related or even continuous, movement within a single “area of freedom, security and justice”, in which both cultural diversity and freedom from discrimination [are] ensured.’
266 Kochenov, D, ‘On Options of Citizens and Moral Choices of States: Gays and European Federalism’ (2009) 33 FordhamIntlLJ 156Google Scholar.
268 Jørgensen, S, ‘The Right to Cross-Border Education in the European Union’ (2009) 46 CMLRev 1567Google Scholar.
274 As discussed in Section IIIB above.
279 According to Jageskiold, denying of the right to leave is ‘is a source of much unnecessary suffering around the world’: Jagerskiold, S, ‘The Freedom of Movement’ in Lenkin, L (ed), The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press 1981) 167Google Scholar.
280 Arts 9 EU and 20 TFEU.
282 Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C–135/08 Rottmann  ECR I–1449, para 23.
283 L Azoulai, ‘Marges de la citoyenneté européenne – Obligations étatiques, équité transnationale, Euro-Bonds’ in B Fauvarque-Cosson et al (eds), La citoyenneté européenne, (Société de la législation compareé 2011).
290 Case C–34/09 Ruiz Zambrano  ECR I–0000, para 41.
294 Case C–135/08 Rottmann  ECR I–1449.
316 A Williams, ‘Human Rights and the European Court of Justice: Past and Present Tendencies’ (2011) Legal Studies Research Paper Warwick Law School No 2011-06, 53.