Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Azoulai |
The treaties establish a transnational paradigm of EU citizenship based on MS territoriality. The paradigm creates a tension in the development of the concept of union citizenship. Arguably there can be no meaningful concept of Union citizenship if there is no way to connect citizenship to Europe as a whole. A union citizen can be broadly defined as a natural person constituted by reference to a branch of national law which is granted a space of autonomous action beyond and across the territorial boundaries of the MS He suggests there is a duty on Union citizens to integrate in the host society |
|
|
what is citizenship |
It is a status from which rights and duties are dervied e.g. civil rights, political rights, social rights and national identity duty |
|
|
Maastricht Treaty
|
Introduced EU citizenship. |
|
|
Article 20-25 TFEU |
EU citizenship in primary law. |
|
|
Main rights |
Right to move freely within the territory of MS Right to vote and stand as a candidate to the EP in municipal elections in MS under same conditions as nationals of the MS (though municipal elections has a different interpretation in each MS) Right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the MS of which they nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic authorities of any MS Right to petition the EP, to apply to the European Ombudsman and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to receive a reply in the same language. |
|
|
Political rights (Spain v Commission) |
MS may allow non EU nationals to vote-Citizens of Gibraltar were entitled to vote in the EP elections |
|
|
Political rights (Eman) |
MS can decide who can vote but cannot discriminate against their own nationals who reside in an OCT. In this case the dutch authorities did not allow nationals of Aruba to vote in the election. CJEU said MS could not discriminate. |
|
|
Kochenov (duties) |
He suggests there are no duties despite the reference to them by Art 20 TFEU but he said this is a good thing |
|
|
Who is an EU citizen |
EU citizenship is dependent on nationality of a MS, EU citizenship does not replace nationality. |
|
|
Micheletti (who is an EU citizen) |
It is for each MS, having regard to EU law, to lay down the acquisition and loss of nationality. |
|
|
Rottmann (who is an EU citizen)
|
Acquisition/loss of nationality in so far as it affects EU rights is amenable to judicial review as a matter of EU law. This case concerned acquiring the nationality of another MS. Rottmann failed to disclose that he was being investigated for fraud and then the German authorities found out they stripped him of his German nationality. He had been a German national for a very short time but during that time, he lost his Austrian nationality. The decision to strip someone of their nationality is exclusive to an MS but can be reviewed by the court in light of EU law and proportionality. CJEU left it up to the national court to decide whether the decision was appropriate. |
|
|
EU citizenship for sale |
Investment-linked nationality programmes e.g. in Cyprus, if you invest 2.5 million Euros in Cyprus you become a Cypriot national. This is attractive because of the free movement rights attached to Cypriot nationality as it is part of the EU. There is a similar system in Malta and it has been pressured to revise its nationality policy. |
|
|
2 conditions in the 1990s residence directives |
Medical insurance sufficient resources |
|
|
Martinez Sala (Equal treatment from lawful residence) |
Equal treatment in relation to welfare benefits for Union citizens lawfully resident in the host MS. this case involved a Spanish national who lived in German who applied for a benefit there. The key point was that she was a lawful resident there. The court stated the important principle whereby if a citizen moves from one MS to another, she is entitled to equal treatment provided she lawfully resides ther. |
|
|
Grzelczyk (equal treatment from lawful residence) |
Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of the MS: when someone moves to another country they are primarily an EU citizen. The court did recognise that the residency directives in force at the time did limit equal treatment as the person had to have sufficient resources and medical treatment (rationale for this was that the citizen shouldn't become an unreasonable burden on the state). Note if someone applies for a benefit once, this doesn't automatically mean a loss of residence. |
|
|
Tas-Hagen (beyond discrimination) |
National legislation which places at a disadvantage certain of the nationals of the MS simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and reside in another MS is a restirction on freedoms conferred by Art 21(1) TFEU. Mr and Mrs Tas-Hagen were both born in former Futch East Indies and moved to Ntherlands where they aquired dutch nationality. In 1987, both stopped working as a result of health problems and took up residence in Spain. They applied for a pension for civilian war victims claiming their health problems were a result of their experiences during Japan's occupation of the Dutch East Indies in WWII. Dutch authorities rejected their applications since, under Dutch laws, the award of a pension for civilian war victims was conditional on residence in the Netherlands. |
|
|
D'Hoop (beyond discrimination) |
The exercise of free movement would not be fully effective if a national of a MS could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised on his return to his country of origin by legislation penalising the fact that he has relied on free movement. |
|
|
Direct effect of Art 21 |
yes but it is subject to limitations and conditions laid down in the directives |
|
|
Baumbast (Art 21 subject to proportionality) |
Germany family lived in the UK. Baumbast was not a worker under EU law as his job was outside the EU so he had to satisfy the residency requirements. He lived in the UK and was self-sufficient and had medical insurance in Germany but the Home Office said the requirements weren't satisfied as they didn't have emergency medical insurance in the UK. The court said that as he had filled nearly all the conditions, the refusal to allow him to exercise his right of residence would amount to a disproportionate interference with that right |
|
|
D'Hoop (justification for difference in treatment) |
Justification can only be based on objective reasons: existence of a real link with geographic employment market (requirement of secondary education in Belgium was 'too general and exclusive' and not necessarily representative of a link with the MS's employment market.) |
|
|
Bidar (justification for difference in treatment) |
certain degree of integration in host society: in order to be elogible for student finance in the UK the applicant was to have a) resided in the UK for at least 3 years and b) not for the purpose of receiving full-time education. Bidar had satisfied a) but not b). Court found these requirements were indirectly discriminatory. However it held that in relation to a) it was legitimate for a MS to grant funding only to those students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the Ms but the justification was subject to proportionality |
|
|
Cross Border element |
this is triggered by dual nationality even if the right holder has not cross a border |
|
|
Chen (cross border element) |
Chinese baby was born in Belfast and at the time the nationality laws said that anyone born in Ireland could apply for Irish nationality. Mother gave birth in Belfast so daughter could be an Irish nation but then moved to Wales and claimed residence there. They application for a long term residence permit was rejected because they claimed the daughter was not exercising her EU law rights and therefore the mother was not covered. Court said daughter fell under Art 21 and as she was covered by the mother's health insurance and as the mother had sufficient resourced, the directive conditions were fulfilled. Court said that a refusal to grant residence to the parent of the child who enjoyed EU citizenship would deprive the child's right of residence of any useful effect. |
|
|
Directove 2004/38 |
Aims to simplify and consolidate free movement and residence rights of EU citizens. Repeals and replaces 90s directive. |
|
|
Economically inactive citizen's residence (mandatory admissions) |
spouse registered partner (based on the rules of the host MS so if the host MS does not recognise same sex marriage then the partner will not be mandatory admission) Direct descendants under 21 or dependents Dependent direct relatives in the ascending line |
|
|
Economically inactive citizen's residence (discretionary admissions)
|
Duty to facilitate entry of: other family who are dependent on EU citizen or require their care Partners who are in a 'durable relationship' this is quite hard. |
|
|
entry/exit of economically inactive citizen's residence |
right to leave and enter territory of MS with a valid ID/passport (no additional formality) |
|
|
Temporary residence of economically inactive citizen's residence |
unconditional right of residence for up to 3 months: no requirement to have medical insurance/sufficient resources or be economically active |
|
|
During temporary residence period of economically inactive citizen's residence |
economically active citizens and their family have the right to enjoy full equal treatment Economically inactive citizens and their families enjoy equal treatment but not in relation to social assistance or student loans Economically inactive citizens should not become unreasonable burden on the host state |
|
|
Intermediate residence (over 3 months) of economically inactive citizen's residence |
economically active citizens continue to enjoy unconditional residence and full equal treatment Economically inactive citizens have a conditional right of residence (sufficient resources and medical insurance) and enjoy full equal treatment (including welfare benefits) |
|
|
Unreasonable burden (controversial area) |
economically inactive citizens who become an unreasonable burden on the host of MS welfare may lose their right to reside there. Due regard must be given to individual circumstances Proportionality MS should not systematically verify conditions. |
|
|
Students |
Subject to comprehensive sickness insurances and sufficient resources (declaration, no need to provide evidence) Equal treatment in relation to social welfare excluding maintenance grants and maintenance loans (unless they are the family of an EU worker) |
|
|
Right of permanent residence |
After 5 years of continuous legal residence in host MS unconditional right Right to full equal treatment in relation to social assistance and student loans and grants No distinction between economically active and other citizens. once acquired, the status is lost only through absence over 2 years. |
