EU Citizenship: Some Systemic Constitutional Implications

Robert Schütze (ed.), Governance and Globalisation: International and European Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 305–336.

EU citizenship plays a much more significant role in EU law than what the cursory reading of Part II TFEU could probably suggest. In fact, this status has outgrown its initial derivation logic and, together with the core principles of the internal market, including, especially, non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, plays a significant role in shaping the nationalities of the Member States of the EU and the rights these statuses bring to their holders. Once the derivation logic emerged in a new light, EU citizenship’s necessary potential to inform the inner-workings of outlining the scope of EU law – the core ‘federal question’ – came to the fore. The EU is still in the middle of a clash between the cross-border internal market logic of scope of the law determination and the ideals of human dignity and human rights protection which are indispensable for any citizenship in any constitutional system to be effective. Rights- and dignity-based arguments are mute in a situation where the scope of the law is determined based on the internal market considerations. Rights claims end up dismissed as non-existent in the eyes of the EU in a federation designed, precisely, not to see human suffering of those it cannot use to the good end of market integration. Such people become invisible and enjoy no protection of the law. There are ways to change this, turning the EU into a constitutional system resting on ethically and morally justifiable rights and principles, as opposed to the logical aberration of ethically contingent acts, such as the fetishisation of cross-border travel. There are good reasons behind the fact that no other democracy fails its citizens on the pretext that they have not taken the bus enough: the EU’s untenable approach has to change and this chapter explains both why and how.

dialnet.unirioja.es

The main thesis of this chapter is that the Constitution has failed to construct a solid link between the two components citizenship and democracy in the EU in order to address the resolution of EU political conflict(s).

Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies

This article argues for the (re)construction of citizenship of the European Union as an autonomous status. As opposed to the current legal regime, whereby individuals with nationality of a Member State are automatically granted citizenship of the Union, under this proposal individuals would be free to choose whether or not to adopt the status of citizen of an incipient European polity. At present, the telos and essence of citizenship of the Union is contested. It may be argued that the status is partial or incomplete. This has informed competing normative perspectives. ‘Maximalist’ positions praise the judicial construction of Union citizenship as destined to be the ‘fundamental status’ for all Member State nationals. By contrast, ‘minimalist’ positions argue that the status should remain ‘additional to’ Member State nationality, and the rights created therein should remain supplementary to the status and rights derived from national citizenship. This article will argue for a new ap...

15 Columbia Journal of European Law, 2009, pp. 169–238

The citizenship of the European Union is a rare example of a "fundamental status" which is entirely dependent on the specific features of the bearer, instead of vice versa, making any appeal to equality between European citizens impossible. Based on an overview of the legal essence and functioning of European citizenship both as a legal status and a bundle of rights, this paper provides a critical analysis of the current development of the European citizenship concept vis-a-vis both citizens and third-country nationals in the EU and addresses key issues which will have to be resolved to create a truly meaningful citizenship in Europe. The deficiencies of European citizenship are too important to resolve them rhetorically by appeals to the interplay between different legal orders in Europe. Sooner or later the outstanding problems will have to be addressed in a constructive way. The EU does not need a citizenship of unequals by law.

Nathan Cambien, Dimitry Kochenov and Elise Muir (eds), European Citizenship under Stress: Social Justice, Brexit and Other Challenges (Brill-Nijhoff, 2020), 2020

The chapter supports the idea that the political integration in the domain of EU fundamental rights is primarily evolving through a ‘triangular’, inter-connected system of protection, including the constructivist transformation of EU citizenship, the institutionalised developments of EU law, and the protection of fundamental rights as general principles of EU law. Yet major components of a comprehensive and all-embracing fundamental rights policy are still absent, which is even more perceptible during periods of crisis, such as the recent financial crisis, where the gaps in citizens’ rights protection became evident due to the difficulties encountered in challenging the consequences of the conditionality imposed. The article aims to fill these gaps, by establishing a connection between EU fundamental and EU citizenship rights, using the judicially developed ‘substance of the rights’ doctrine. Various attempts have taken place towards this aim, yet some loose ends remained that are largely encountered in the present article, through the establishment of a new jurisdictional test, which combines a dynamic reading of Art. 20 TFEU and the substance of the rights doctrine, Art. 2 TEU and fundamental rights as general principles of EU law, such as Art. 19 TEU.

2014

The Maastricht Treaty (the “Treaty”) first introduced the status of EU citizenship. The twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty, marked in 2013, was declared the European Year of the Citizen. Union citizenship has been understood as the world’s first post-national citizenship, although it is still complementary to national citizenships. EU citizens enjoy rights that have been expanded, modified, and reinterpreted in light of the EU integration process. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been a driving force in this process. This twentieth anniversary has provided the occasio for this special issue. Indeed, much has happened over the last two decades. The Maastricht Treaty entered into force on the heels of German reunification, and afterwards, a series of EU treaties followed: The Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights, the aborted constitutionalization process and the Rome Treaty in 2004, and the Treaty of Lisbon. The Euro took over f...

2006

The development of the EU citizenship concept within the current boundaries of the Union is incompatible with some of the terms of enlargement, namely the policy of transition periods, outlined in the Act of Accession. While the ECJ has tried to interpret EU citizenship as a 'fundamental status', the 2003 Act of Accession introduces limitations on the freedom of movement-a core citizenship right-thus undermining the European citizenship concept and the idea of equality for all Europeans. Unfortunately, this situation is made possible by the wording of Article 18 EC itself, which allows for conditions, thus opening the door for the creation of 'second class' citizens. This paper argues that the most recent enlargement offered an opportunity to bring about a new understanding of equality at the European level and give real meaning to the European citizenship concept, completing rather than undermining the achievements of the ECJ, and taking into account the lessons of previous enlargements. In light of this, the Articles of Accession represent a missed opportunity.

2019

The EU is no longer an organisation that merely pursues economic objectives, but it also evolves towards a more political and constitutionalised Union. The thesis supports that the political integration in the field of EU fundamental rights, is primarily evolving through a ‘triangular’, inter-connected system of protection, including the constructivist transformation of EU citizenship, the institutionalised developments, such as the EU Charter, and the protection of fundamental rights as general principles of EU law. Yet major components of a flawless fundamental rights policy as a whole, are still absent and this is even more perceptible during periods of crises, such as the recent financial crisis, where a lack in citizens’ rights protection is evident, especially in effective judicial protection, due to the difficulty in challenging the consequences of the conditionality imposed. The deficient protection largely derived from the restricted scope of application of fundamental righ...

European citizenship, which was once seen as the symbol of European integration, is increasingly perceived as an obstacle to self-government and a threat to national welfare. As European ruling classes fail to provide an adequate response to the tensions that arise from the wider trends of globalization, anti-political movements are gaining support. A significant part of European citizenry is aligning with parties that preach the restoration of national borders and the reinstatement of cultural identity as the source of sovereign power embodied in the nation state. Does the way forward reside in dissolving the European project or reducing the power held by European institutions? In this article, we suggest the opposite. We need to begin by recognizing the significance of European integration as an evolving political experience of immense magnitude. We need to emphasize that Europe today provides citizens with unique means to claim social, political and economic rights by going beyond the borders of their states, create alliances, invoke different conventions and treaties, and debate and contest dominant perspectives in front of diverse audiences. Ultimately, we need to utilize a European citizenship that reinstates political power to citizens towards fostering fresh sentiments for a new form of integration.

2006

The recognition of European citizenship by the Treaty on European Union (Treaty of Maastricht) introduced a novel legal institution into the European construction, hitherto unknown in international law. Its historical importance and nature will be analysed through different perspectives. The analysis of the structure of European citizenship reveals main advantages and disadvantages of the current concept. However, in its current form, it offers a very limited list of rights. Until recently, citizens’ rights were neglected and invisible at the level of the European Union. This is especially visible in the policies towards the candidate and accession countries, which are obliged to follow certain human rights standards in order to meet the conditions for membership. The importance and meaning of European citizenship for third country nationals has been emphasised over the last few years.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 3–82

This contribution defends the position that the positive potential of EU citizenship will not be realised unless EU citizenship is endowed with a structural role in the context of EU federalism. The core aspects of citizenship, including the practical application of equality and the functioning of rights are intimately and inescapably connected with the principles behind the drawing of the vertical competences boundary in Europe. Consequently – and possibly counter-intuitively – the key principles underlying the division of competences between the EU and the Member States are nothing else but the core aspects of the citizenship of the Union. This paper critiques the current status quo in EU citizenship law and literature, which tends to ignore this obvious consideration and defends the proposition of turning citizenship into a meaningful federal denominator in Europe, thereby using the framing of the boundary of supranational competences as a tool in the service of EU citizens and the Member States rather than as a justificatory tool for the exclusion of the most vulnerable from protection and the robbing of Europeans of dignity through the deployment of ethically and morally untenable triggers of jurisdiction in what has been called, oxymoronically, 'the market citizenship' of the EU. This is, thus, a substantiated plea for a decommodification of personhood in the EU.

Springer eBooks, 2017

This chapter gives a swift overview of the workings and principal rights associated with European citizenship. Some insight into the historical evolution of the status is offered. The major entitlements are explained as well as important case-law. The aim is to provide an outline of the essentials of European citizenship for the purpose of understanding the arguments made in this book. Keywords European citizenship Á Brexit Á United Kingdom Á Freedom of movement Á Right of residence Á EU law Á EU citizens' rights The status of European citizenship was introduced in European law with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Let us see what steps were taken to establish this particular form of status civitatis that differs from the standard legal form of citizenship that we are used to consider equivalent to nationality. It is additional to having member state nationality. It entails a series of rights that nationals of member states would not enjoy if they were not European citizens. This confers a degree of independence to the content of the status. It is not, however, an autonomous status. Yet, member states are not fully autonomous in exercising discretion over who gets access to the status. This overview shows what makes European citizenship a status sui generis that is not constituted in the same way as nationality in unitary states or dual citizenship commonly found in federal systems. The aim of this chapter is

In this thesis, our aim will be to explore the grey zone that exists between legal and political studies of EU citizenship. We will try to determine what has been until now the concrete impact of legal developments on the political nature of Union citizenship, and we will replace these findings in a broader political framework to envision the potential role that citizenship could play as an instrument of the EU politicisation. Our approach is a profoundly pragmatic one, which proceeds from the assumption that we need to know precisely what citizenship is before envisaging what it could be. In this respect, our aim is to build a small bridge between legal and political thinking by analysing the link that exists between legal developments of EU citizenship and their constitutional implications on the development of a political European Union. How can we analyse the imbalance that exists between legal developments and political discourses on EU citizenship? What does this gap between legal reality and political perceptions of Union citizenship reveal about the EU politicisation challenge? The imbalance between frequent invocations of EU citizenship as an ambitious status of rights by the Court of Justice and less effective calls for the emergence of a political Status in political and institutional debates is the result of an overall lack of definition of ‘what Europe do we want’. If the law in itself cannot create a political reality, it can however create a praxis which would ultimately lead to the emergence of new political representations. Union citizenship should not be considered as an objective as such of European integration, but it should be acknowledged as a dynamic concept which can contribute to the creation of a new European political culture corresponding to the sui generis nature of the EU.

2020