Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.314 Render date: 2021-12-03T13:24:02.615Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

II. Eu Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Extract

The Court has continued with its expansive interpretation of the Citizenship provisions in Article 18 EC which it had previously acknowledged as being a fundamental right granted to all EU citizens by the Treaty.1 The case-law of the Court has, in particular, stressed the relationship between the free movement rights under Article 18 EC and preventing discrimination against EU nationals on grounds of nationality and without which the Citizenship provisions would lack force. Two recent judgments of Bidar2 and Ioannidis3 demonstrate the extent to which the Court will prevent covert discrimination on grounds of nationality. In a third judgment, that of Schempp,4 the Court, seemingly sensitive to criticism of interfering in domestic tax policy, adopts a more measured interpretation of discrimination when considering whether the rights granted under Article 18 EC are interfered with.

Type
Current Developments: European Union Law
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, eg, Case C–148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR 17091.Google Scholar

2 Case C–209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR 12119.Google ScholarSee also RCA White ‘Free Movement, Equal Treatment and Citizenship of the Union’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 885, 899.Google Scholar

3 Case C–258/04 Ioannidis [2005] ECR 18275.Google Scholar

4 Case C–403/03 Schempp [2005] ECR 16421.Google Scholar

5 Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence. This Directive will be replaced by Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, ‘the Citizenship Directive.’

6 See also Case 152/73 Sotgiu [1974] ECR 153, para 11.Google Scholar

7 Case C–138/02 Collins [2004] ECR 12703, para 63.Google Scholar

8 Case C–403/03 [2005] ECR 16421.Google Scholar

9 Particularly noteworthy is the statement in para 39 that non-taxability is different from an actual non-taxation, even if the practical result is the same. Since the ECJ did not give an answer to the question if a deduction must be allowed in case of actual non-taxation in a Member State that normally taxes maintenance payments, the outcome might be different if the recipient of the payments is resident in, or a national of, another Member State other than Austria.

10 Advocate General Geelhoed recognizes that taxation of maintenance payments may trigger Art 56 EC (para 18). In contrast the Court does not refer to this issue.

11 While in the present state of Community law direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, the latter must none the less exercise that competence in accordance with Community law, in particular the provisions of the Treaty concerning the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and therefore avoid any overt or covert discrimination on the basis of nationality. See, eg, Case C279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I225Google Scholar, paras 21 and 26, and Case C385/00 De Groot [2002] ECR I11819, para 75.Google Scholar

12 The situation of a national of a Member State who, like Mr Schempp, has not made use of the right to freedom of movement cannot, for that reason alone, be assimilated to a purely internal situation, see, to that effect, Case C200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR 19925, para 19.Google Scholar

13 Case C–456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR 17573.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

II. Eu Citizenship
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

II. Eu Citizenship
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

II. Eu Citizenship
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *