Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:45:23.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Content of European Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Pavlos Eleftheriadis

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many European Union law scholars, commentators and politicians consider the creation of European citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht an important landmark in the process towards “ever closer union.” By marking a special relationship with the Union itself, citizenship epitomizes the growing maturity of the Union as a political community and not merely an economic project of a single market. Citizenship introduces the first elements of a political, social, and emotional bond between the peoples of Europe and their new Union. Nonetheless, the content of European citizenship remains a puzzle. The rights it grants are very different to those promised by states. When looked at in detail, it fails to match many of the most central elements of citizenship.

One of the problems in this area is that there is no single common core of citizenship rights. State citizenship in general marks a special relationship with a political community marked by a bundle of rights and duties, yet that relationship takes many forms.1 Some sociological accounts present a model of citizenship with many components disaggregated and broken down as overlapping identifications.2 Nevertheless, even these theories presuppose that the primary case of citizenship is some type of special belonging or attachment to a political community. Multiple national or other identities do not challenge the idea of a special attachment to a single set of institutions. In fact, they presuppose it. A theory of citizenship must explain the content of this special bond between the citizens and his or her political community and must explain whether or to what extent such a special bond has moral value sufficient to create moral obligations on those sharing it.3

Type
Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 5: Special Issue EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On , 01 August 2014 , pp. 777 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 A special relationship is assumed by most theoretical approaches, whatever the nuances and transformations resulting under the twin pressures of globalization and mass migration. See, e.g., John G. A. Pocock, The Idea of Citizenship Since Classical Times, in Theorizing Citizenship 29–52 (Ronald Beiner ed., 1995).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Cohen, Jean, Changing Paradigms of Citizenship and the Exclusiveness of the Demos, 14 Int'l Soc. 245– 268 (1999).Google Scholar

3 Eleftheriadis, Pavlos, Citizenship and Obligation, in Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law 159–188 (Julie Dickson & Pavlos Eleftheriadis eds., 2012) (discussing the general issue in detail).Google Scholar

4 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art.20, Mar. 9,2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

5 Catherine Barnard, EC Employment Law 49 (2006).Google Scholar

6 Article 3 states: “This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.”Google Scholar

7 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz, CJEU Case C-274/96, 1998 E.C.R. I-0763, para. 23.Google Scholar

8 Id. Google Scholar

9 Rudy Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, CJEU Case C-184/99, 2001 E.C.R. I-6193, para. 31; Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CJEU Case C-413/99, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091, para. 82.Google Scholar

10 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (ONEm), CJEU Case C-34/09, (Mar. 8, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

11 Id. at para. 39.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 41.Google Scholar

13 Id. at para. 42.Google Scholar

14 Id. at para. 44.Google Scholar

15 Id. Google Scholar

16 McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CJEU Case C-434/09, (May 5, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

17 Id. at para. 39.Google Scholar

18 Id. at para. 49.Google Scholar

19 Murat Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, CJEU Case C-256/11, (Nov. 15, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

20 Id. at para. 43.Google Scholar

21 Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

22 Id. at para. 67.Google Scholar

23 Zambrano, CJEU Case C-34/09 at para. 88.Google Scholar

24 See Bogdandy, Armin von, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 11–54 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jurgen Bast eds., 2009). For a similar mood of resignation see also Stefan Kadelbach, Union Citizenship, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 443–478 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jurgen Bast eds., 2009).Google Scholar

25 Bogdandy, Armin von, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 54 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jurgen Bast eds., 2009). Of course, stability can be the result of incoherence. Bad law or corrupt law often fails to surprise those living under it.Google Scholar

26 Shaw, Jo, Citizenship: Contrasting Dynamics, in The Evolution of EU Law 575, 597 (Paul Craig & Grainne de Burca eds., 2011).Google Scholar

27 Marshall, Thomas H., Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays 28–29 (1950).Google Scholar

28 Id. at 29.Google Scholar

29 For a discussion of Marshall's arguments and their contemporary relevance see John D. Stephens, The Social Rights of Citizenship, in The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State 511 (Francis G. Castles, Stephan Leibfried, Jane Lewis, Herbert Obinger & Christopher Pierson eds., 2010). For an interesting general discussion see Steven Hill, Europe's Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age (2010).Google Scholar

30 See Marshall, , supra note 27.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 26.Google Scholar

32 The fact that EU law has nothing to say on the process and conditions for the election of members of the European Parliament is a common theme in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. See, e.g., Eman v. College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van den Haag, CJEU Case C-300/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-8055; Le Pen v. European Parliament, CJEU Case C-208/03, 2005 E.C.R. I-6051; Italian Republic and Beniamino Donnici v. European Parliament, CJEU Cases C-393/07 & C-9/08, 2009 E.C.R. I-03679.Google Scholar

33 Grzelczyk, CJEU Case C-184/99.Google Scholar

34 Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, CJEU Case C-34/09, 2011 E.C.R. I-01177; Baumbast v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, CJEU Case C-413/99, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091.Google Scholar

35 Zhu v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, CJEU Case C-200/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925.Google Scholar

36 See, e.g., D'Hoop v. Office national de l'emploi, CJEU Case C-224/98, 2002 E.C.R. I-6191, para. 38; Collins v. Sec'y of State for Work and Pensions, CJEU Case C-138/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-2703, para. 69; Office national de l'emploi v. Ioannis Ioannidis, CJEU Case C-258/04, 2005 E.C.R. I-8275, para. 30; The Queen, on the application of Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing, CJEU Case C-209/03, 2005 E.C.R. I-2119, paras. 55–56. By contrast, in the U.S. such entitlements are automatic with residence. See, e.g., Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). See Ann P. van der Mei, Freedom of Movement for Indigents: A Comparative Analysis of American Constitutional Law and European Community Law, 19 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 803 (2002).Google Scholar

37 See, e.g., Matsaganis, Manos, The Greek Crisis: Social Impact and Policy Responses (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung 2013).Google Scholar

38 For the way it applies to the European Union, see Andrea Sangiovani, Solidarity in the EU, 33 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 1 (2013).Google Scholar

39 See, e.g., Gouldner, Alvin W., The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement, 25 Am. Soc. Rev. 161 (1960).Google Scholar

40 See, e.g., Atiyah, Patrick S., Contracts, Promises and the Law of Obligations, in Essays on Contracts (1990).Google Scholar

41 See Rawls, John, Justice as Reciprocity, in Collected Papers 190 (Samuel Freeman ed., 2001).Google Scholar

42 Ripstein, Arthur, Equality, Responsibility, and the Law 2 (1999).Google Scholar

43 See Kolm, Serge Cristophe, Reciprocity: An Economics of Social Relations 1 (2008) (“Reciprocity is treating other people as other people treat you voluntarily and not as a result of a binding exchange agreement.”).Google Scholar

44 Rawls, John, Political Liberalism 50 (1993).Google Scholar

45 Id. at 137.Google Scholar

46 See, e.g., Keohane, Robert O., Reciprocity in International Relations, 40 Int'l Rel. 1 (1986).Google Scholar

47 For this view of international law, see Ronald Dworkin, A New Philosophy of International Law, 41 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 1 (2013).Google Scholar

48 See, e.g., Harold, Koh, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, 106 Yale L.J. 2599 (1997).Google Scholar

49 European citizenship under EU law excludes them from any EU rights of active residents unless they are family members of EU citizens. National citizenship is used as a filter for EU based rights of economic agency.Google Scholar

50 Miller, David, On Nationality 70–71 (1995).Google Scholar

51 Lenaerts, Koen, European Union Citizenship, National Welfare Systems and Social Solidarity, 18 Jurisprudencija 397 (2011). See also Koen Lenaerts & Tinne Heremans, Contours of a European Social Union in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice, 2 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 101 (2006).Google Scholar

52 Lenaerts, Koen, European Union Citizenship, National Welfare Systems and Social Solidarity, 18 Jurisprudencija 397 (2011).Google Scholar

53 Dougan, Michael & Spaventa, Eleanor, Wish You Weren't Here … New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union, in Social Welfare & EU Law 181 (Michael Dougan & Eleanor Spaventa eds., 2005).Google Scholar

54 Baumbast v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, CJEU Case C-413/99, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091.Google Scholar

55 Id. at paras. 87–90.Google Scholar

56 See Collins v. Sec'y of State for Work and Pensions, CJEU Case C-138/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-2703.Google Scholar

57 Id. at para. 58.Google Scholar

58 See id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

59 See id. at para. 67.Google Scholar

60 Advocate General Jacobs went on to add: “The introduction of that notion was largely inspired by the concern to bring the Union closer to its citizens and to give expression to its character as more than a purely economic union. That concern is reflected in the removal of the word ‘economic’ from the Community's name (also effected by the Treaty on European Union) and by the progressive introduction into the EC Treaty of a wide range of activities and policies transcending the field of the economy.” Bickel and Franz, CJEU Case C-274/96, para. 23, (Nov. 24, 1998), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

61 See Sangiovani, Andrea, Solidarity in the EU, 33 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 1 (2013).Google Scholar

62 Keohane, Robert O., Reciprocity in International Relations, 40 Int'l Rel. 4 (1986).Google Scholar

63 See also Barnard, Catherine, EU Citizenship and the Principle of Solidarity, in Social Welfare & EU Law 157 (Michael Dougan & Eleanor Spaventa eds., 2005).Google Scholar