Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Maastricht Universit...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Brunel University Research Archive
Part of book or chapter of book . 2018
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

European Union citizenship

The pitfalls of a fundamental status
Authors: Hamenstädt, K;

European Union citizenship

Abstract

European Union citizenship was introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 and is currently held by approximately 500 million people. In 2001, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter: ECJ or Court) famously held in Grzelczyk that “Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”.1 This article aims to contribute to the ongoing debate regarding the shift in the Court’s case law on EU citizenship,2 by exploring whether EU citizenship can still be considered as the fundamental status of every citizen of the European Union or whether some EU citizens are excluded from this status and the rights associated therewith. This question is discussed against the background of the inherently open notion of integration and against two principles of the Rechtsstaat, one being the principle of legal certainty and the other being the principle of proportionality. The notion of integration and the principle of proportionality share common features as they are open-ended, require an assessment of the facts of the individual case and are therefore not conducive to establishing legal certainty. This article addresses the Court’s recourse to the respective concepts and the effects of the application of these concepts on EU citizenship. It is argued that the Court’s recourse to the principle of legal certainty is used to forego a proportionality assessment. The lack of a proportionality assessment and thereby a lack of an assessment of the facts of the individual case and a balancing process, disadvantages specific groups of EU citizens. In other areas of citizenship law, the Court establishes the requirement of an assessment of the EU citizen’s integration in the host Member State. This approach, however, has the effect of undermining legal certainty and furthers the exclusion of EU citizens from the protection against expulsion or the acquisition of permanent residence status. The ECJ’s recourse to the principle of legal certainty or the concept of integration enhances Member States’ sovereignty, their margin of discretion vis-à-vis EU citizens and weakens the legal position of EU citizens.

Countries
Netherlands, United Kingdom
Keywords

340, 320

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Fields of Science
Fields of Science
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!