The Substance of the Rights of the Union Citizen - Freedom of Movement on the Internal Market But Nothing More?
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- När bestämmelserna om unionsmedborgarskap introducerades i Fördraget om Europeiska Unionen 1992 var det få som trodde att de skulle få någon betydelse bortom det symboliska. Genom en omfattande serie rättsfall har EU-domstolen utvecklat rättigheter kopplade till unionsmedborgarskap, där uppehållsrätten och rätten att fritt vistas inom Unionen är de centrala rättigheterna. Dessa rättigheter aktiveras vid ett gränsöverskridande.
I rättsfallen Rottmann och Ruiz Zambrano utmanade EU-domstolen sin tidigare praxis rörande interna situationer. Om en tredjelandsmedborgare som är familjemedlem till en unionsmedborgare nekas uppehållsrätt och detta medför att unionsmedborgaren “berövas möjligheten att faktiskt åtnjuta kärnan i de rättigheter som... (More) - När bestämmelserna om unionsmedborgarskap introducerades i Fördraget om Europeiska Unionen 1992 var det få som trodde att de skulle få någon betydelse bortom det symboliska. Genom en omfattande serie rättsfall har EU-domstolen utvecklat rättigheter kopplade till unionsmedborgarskap, där uppehållsrätten och rätten att fritt vistas inom Unionen är de centrala rättigheterna. Dessa rättigheter aktiveras vid ett gränsöverskridande.
I rättsfallen Rottmann och Ruiz Zambrano utmanade EU-domstolen sin tidigare praxis rörande interna situationer. Om en tredjelandsmedborgare som är familjemedlem till en unionsmedborgare nekas uppehållsrätt och detta medför att unionsmedborgaren “berövas möjligheten att faktiskt åtnjuta kärnan i de rättigheter som tillkommer den i kraft av unionsmedborgarskapet” är den åtgärden oförenlig med unionsrätten. Innebörden och räckvidden av dessa avgöranden har debatterats livligt. Av de efterföljande avgöranden McCarthy, Dereci och Iida framgick det att omfattningen av denna doktrin är begränsad till situationer där en unionsmedborgare tvingas att lämna inte bara sin hemstat utan hela unionen till följd av att familjemedlemmen nekats härledd uppehållsrätt. Den inneboende logiken är att följden av en sådan åtgärd blir att unionsmedborgaren berövas även sin rätt till fri rörlighet.
Med utgångspunkt i idén att en rättighetsdiskurs fungerar som ett verktyg för att legitimisera ett politiskt projekt, i detta fall den Europeiska unionen, undersöks förhållandet mellan unionsmedborgarskap och grundläggande rättigheter i den särskilda kontexten av Ruiz Zambrano-undantaget.
Motstridiga diskurser om unionsmedborgarskapsbegreppets innebörd påverkar det sättet på vilket grundläggande rättigheter behandlas i EU-domstolens rättspraxis. Inom den universalistiska diskursen ses unionsmedborgarskapet som en allomfattande status och visionen är att därigenom tillförsäkras rättigheter till alla unionsmedborgare oavsett om de nyttjat rätten till fri rörlighet eller inte. Den alternativa diskursen beskriver unionsmedborgarskapet som “marknadsmedborgarskap”. I denna diskurs är EU främst en inre marknad, medan medlemsstaternas kompetens omfattar uppgiften att betrygga grundläggande rättigheterna för de medborgare som inte är aktiva på den inre marknaden.
Analysen av de senast tillkomna avgöranden från EU-domstolen tyder på att det mer restriktiva förhållningssättet till rättighetsdiskursen som framgått av Dereci fortsätter att dominera. (Less) - Abstract
- When the legal concept of Union citizenship was first introduced in the Treaty of the European Union in 1992, few thought that the provisions would gain any notable significance beyond the symbolical. But through its case law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gradually developed a body of rights connected to the status of Union citizenship, with the rights of residence and free movement, and with “cross-border movement” acting as a trigger.
In the Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano cases, the Court challenged its earlier doctrine of “wholly internal situation” and introduced a new EU law trigger test. If the expulsion of or the refusal to grant residence rights to a third-country national (TCN) family member of a Union citizen deprives... (More) - When the legal concept of Union citizenship was first introduced in the Treaty of the European Union in 1992, few thought that the provisions would gain any notable significance beyond the symbolical. But through its case law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gradually developed a body of rights connected to the status of Union citizenship, with the rights of residence and free movement, and with “cross-border movement” acting as a trigger.
In the Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano cases, the Court challenged its earlier doctrine of “wholly internal situation” and introduced a new EU law trigger test. If the expulsion of or the refusal to grant residence rights to a third-country national (TCN) family member of a Union citizen deprives the latter of the “genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights connected to Union citizenship”, the measure is precluded. The meaning and implications of this line of case law have and continue to be debated intensively by scholars. With the consequent cases, McCarthy, Dereci and Iida, it became increasingly clear that the scope of the “genuine enjoyment” test is limited to when the Union citizen is de facto forced to leave not only the territory of the home Member State, but the entire Union territory, if the TCN family member is not granted a right of residence. The inherent logic is that by forcing the Union citizen to leave the Union, such a measure also deprives the Union citizen of the right to exercise free movement within the Union.
Departing from the premise that the use of rights language functions as a tool for legitimizing a political project, in this case the European Union, this thesis investigates the relationship between Union citizenship and fundamental rights especially in the context of the ‘substance of the rights’ doctrine.
It is observed that conflicting discourses on the meaning and contents of Union citizenship affect the role of fundamental rights in the case law. The universalist narrative envisions Union citizenship as an all-encompassing status, guaranteeing rights to all Union citizens regardless of them being free movers or sedentary. The alternative narrative is one of traditional market citizenship, which sees the Union as predominantly an internal market, while the assessment of fundamental rights for those not participating on the internal market belongs to the competence of the Member States.
Through an analysis of the most recent case law, it is found that the return to a more restrictive approach concerning the rights connected to Union citizenship, prevalent in Dereci, continues to dominate. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4580683
- author
- Peldan, Ulrika LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- discourse theory, fundamental rights, EU law, Union citizenship, free movement
- language
- English
- id
- 4580683
- date added to LUP
- 2014-09-09 12:56:06
- date last changed
- 2014-09-09 12:56:06
@misc{4580683,
abstract = {{When the legal concept of Union citizenship was first introduced in the Treaty of the European Union in 1992, few thought that the provisions would gain any notable significance beyond the symbolical. But through its case law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gradually developed a body of rights connected to the status of Union citizenship, with the rights of residence and free movement, and with “cross-border movement” acting as a trigger.
In the Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano cases, the Court challenged its earlier doctrine of “wholly internal situation” and introduced a new EU law trigger test. If the expulsion of or the refusal to grant residence rights to a third-country national (TCN) family member of a Union citizen deprives the latter of the “genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights connected to Union citizenship”, the measure is precluded. The meaning and implications of this line of case law have and continue to be debated intensively by scholars. With the consequent cases, McCarthy, Dereci and Iida, it became increasingly clear that the scope of the “genuine enjoyment” test is limited to when the Union citizen is de facto forced to leave not only the territory of the home Member State, but the entire Union territory, if the TCN family member is not granted a right of residence. The inherent logic is that by forcing the Union citizen to leave the Union, such a measure also deprives the Union citizen of the right to exercise free movement within the Union.
Departing from the premise that the use of rights language functions as a tool for legitimizing a political project, in this case the European Union, this thesis investigates the relationship between Union citizenship and fundamental rights especially in the context of the ‘substance of the rights’ doctrine.
It is observed that conflicting discourses on the meaning and contents of Union citizenship affect the role of fundamental rights in the case law. The universalist narrative envisions Union citizenship as an all-encompassing status, guaranteeing rights to all Union citizens regardless of them being free movers or sedentary. The alternative narrative is one of traditional market citizenship, which sees the Union as predominantly an internal market, while the assessment of fundamental rights for those not participating on the internal market belongs to the competence of the Member States.
Through an analysis of the most recent case law, it is found that the return to a more restrictive approach concerning the rights connected to Union citizenship, prevalent in Dereci, continues to dominate.}},
author = {{Peldan, Ulrika}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{The Substance of the Rights of the Union Citizen - Freedom of Movement on the Internal Market But Nothing More?}},
year = {{2014}},
}