Advanced

Union citizenship version 2.0

Edlund Josephson, Emily LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract
In a series of fascinating cases decided in 2011, the CJEU modified its classical approach to the scope of application of EU law in the areas of free movement of persons and Union citizenship. The “Zambrano rule” is a narrow exception to the well-known rule of the “purely internal situation”. If a Union citizen runs the risk of de facto losing his status as Union citizen and the rights thereto attached, through having to leave the territory of the Union, he or she may invoke Union law against his or her own home Member State – regardless of the existence of any link to Union law other than Union citizenship in itself. No cross-border element is needed since the loss of the rights in itself constitutes a sufficient link to EU law.

What... (More)
In a series of fascinating cases decided in 2011, the CJEU modified its classical approach to the scope of application of EU law in the areas of free movement of persons and Union citizenship. The “Zambrano rule” is a narrow exception to the well-known rule of the “purely internal situation”. If a Union citizen runs the risk of de facto losing his status as Union citizen and the rights thereto attached, through having to leave the territory of the Union, he or she may invoke Union law against his or her own home Member State – regardless of the existence of any link to Union law other than Union citizenship in itself. No cross-border element is needed since the loss of the rights in itself constitutes a sufficient link to EU law.

What more is, when the forced departure is due to the Union citizen’s dependency on a TCN family member, that family member has a derived right of residence in the Union’s home Member State.

Persons who cannot invoke Union law under either the traditional cross-border paradigm or the Zambrano rule can be divided into two groups: those who have a real possibility to create a sufficient link to Union law, and those who do not have that possibility because of their inability to provide for themselves. In situations regarding the right of residence of a TCN family member, this leads to disturbing situations of reverse discrimination. Outside the scope of the “Zambrano rule”, Union citizen family members are expected to exercise their free movement rights even when they are clearly unable to do so. Thus, where one family can establish a right of residence in the home Member State of the Union citizen on the basis of Union free movement law, another will be split up or be de facto forced to leave the territory of the Union.

The CJEU’s evasive attitude towards the latter group’s inability to exercise their free movement rights can be understood as an acknowledgement of the Member State’s wish to confine free movement of non-economically active persons to those who do not impose a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system.

The Zambrano rule has nonetheless resulted in a de facto expansion of the scope of Union law in order to defend the rights of some of its weakest and more fragile citizens. The CJEU has once again forcefully demonstrated its willingness to defend the spirit and potential inherent in the status of Union citizenship. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I en serie omdebatterade rättsfall från 2011 justerade CJEU tillämpningsområdet för EU-rätten på områdena fri rörlighet för personer och unionsmedborgarskapet. ”Zambranoregeln” utgör ett snävt undantag från domstolens regel om rent interna situationer. Om en unionsmedborgare riskerar att de facto förlora denna ställning samt de rättigheter som är knutna till den, genom att tvingas lämna unionens territorium, kan denne åberopa EU-rätten gentemot sin egen medlemsstat – alldeles oavsett om någon gränsöverskridande omständighet i övrigt knyter situationen till EU-rätten. Förlusten av de unionsmedborgerliga rättigheterna utgör i sig en tillräcklig koppling.

Om den påtvingade avresan beror på att unionsmedborgaren är beroende av en... (More)
I en serie omdebatterade rättsfall från 2011 justerade CJEU tillämpningsområdet för EU-rätten på områdena fri rörlighet för personer och unionsmedborgarskapet. ”Zambranoregeln” utgör ett snävt undantag från domstolens regel om rent interna situationer. Om en unionsmedborgare riskerar att de facto förlora denna ställning samt de rättigheter som är knutna till den, genom att tvingas lämna unionens territorium, kan denne åberopa EU-rätten gentemot sin egen medlemsstat – alldeles oavsett om någon gränsöverskridande omständighet i övrigt knyter situationen till EU-rätten. Förlusten av de unionsmedborgerliga rättigheterna utgör i sig en tillräcklig koppling.

Om den påtvingade avresan beror på att unionsmedborgaren är beroende av en familjemedlem utan uppehållstillstånd inom unionen så tillerkänns denna familjemedlem dessutom en härledd uppehållsrätt i unionsmedborgarens hemstat.

Personer som varken kan åberopa unionsrätten enligt den traditionella regeln om gränsöverskridande inslag eller enligt Zambranoregeln kan delas in i två grupper: de som har en verklig möjlighet att själva skapa en tillräcklig koppling till unionsrätten genom att använda sig av sin fria rörlighet, och de som inte kan det på grund av de saknar möjlighet att försörja sig själva. I situationer som berör en härledd uppehållsrätt för en familjemedlem som inte är unionsmedborgare kan detta leda till svårsmälta resultat. Unionsrätten förväntar sig nämligen att unionsmedborgaren ska utöva sin fria rörlighet för att skapa en tillräcklig koppling till EU-rätten, utan att ta hänsyn till dennes faktiska förmåga att genomföra detta. Därför kan vissa familjer lyckas skapa en uppehållsrätt baserad på EU-rätten, medan andra familjer tvingas till splittring eller till att helt lämna unionens territorium för att kunna leva tillsammans.

Domstolens undflyende attityd till denna sista grupps svårigheter att utöva sin fria rörlighet kan förstås som ett erkännande av medlemsstaternas önskan att begränsa den fria rörligheten för icke självförsörjande personer till dem som inte utgör en belastning för den mottagande medlemsstatens sociala stödsystem.

Zambranoregeln har icke desto mindre resulterat i en de facto utvidgning av tillämpningsområdet för unionsrätten, i syfte att försvara rättigheterna för några av de allra mest utsatta unionsmedborgarna. CJEU har på så sätt återigen med kraft visat sin vilja att försvara unionsmedborgarskapets mål och anda. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Edlund Josephson, Emily LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Rottman, Free movement, Union citizenship, EU-law, Zambrano, L, S, O, Iida, McCarthy, Dereci, EU-rätt, Fri rörlighet, Edlund Josephson, Unionsmedborgarskap, EU-medborgarskap
language
English
id
2863230
date added to LUP
2012-11-01 09:09:28
date last changed
2012-11-01 09:09:28
@misc{2863230,
  abstract     = {In a series of fascinating cases decided in 2011, the CJEU modified its classical approach to the scope of application of EU law in the areas of free movement of persons and Union citizenship. The “Zambrano rule” is a narrow exception to the well-known rule of the “purely internal situation”. If a Union citizen runs the risk of de facto losing his status as Union citizen and the rights thereto attached, through having to leave the territory of the Union, he or she may invoke Union law against his or her own home Member State – regardless of the existence of any link to Union law other than Union citizenship in itself. No cross-border element is needed since the loss of the rights in itself constitutes a sufficient link to EU law.

What more is, when the forced departure is due to the Union citizen’s dependency on a TCN family member, that family member has a derived right of residence in the Union’s home Member State. 

Persons who cannot invoke Union law under either the traditional cross-border paradigm or the Zambrano rule can be divided into two groups: those who have a real possibility to create a sufficient link to Union law, and those who do not have that possibility because of their inability to provide for themselves. In situations regarding the right of residence of a TCN family member, this leads to disturbing situations of reverse discrimination. Outside the scope of the “Zambrano rule”, Union citizen family members are expected to exercise their free movement rights even when they are clearly unable to do so. Thus, where one family can establish a right of residence in the home Member State of the Union citizen on the basis of Union free movement law, another will be split up or be de facto forced to leave the territory of the Union. 

The CJEU’s evasive attitude towards the latter group’s inability to exercise their free movement rights can be understood as an acknowledgement of the Member State’s wish to confine free movement of non-economically active persons to those who do not impose a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system. 

The Zambrano rule has nonetheless resulted in a de facto expansion of the scope of Union law in order to defend the rights of some of its weakest and more fragile citizens. The CJEU has once again forcefully demonstrated its willingness to defend the spirit and potential inherent in the status of Union citizenship.},
  author       = {Edlund Josephson, Emily},
  keyword      = {Rottman,Free movement,Union citizenship,EU-law,Zambrano,L,S,O,Iida,McCarthy,Dereci,EU-rätt,Fri rörlighet,Edlund Josephson,Unionsmedborgarskap,EU-medborgarskap},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Union citizenship version 2.0},
  year         = {2012},
}