Eu Citizenship

Residence directive moved it away from just an economic union * Used to just be people who were economically active people but not non-economical active people can reside such as students, retired people and people who can support themselves. Although you could not be a burden on the state. These directives have been repealed but the legacy lives on. * Article 20 TFEU, talks about citizenship and defines who is a citizen of the union.

If you are a national of one of the member states you are a citizen. It is additional too and does not replace national citizenship. * Article 21, every citizen should have the right to move and reside freely subject to limitations and conditions laid down in the treaties therefore not an absolute right. Such as if you are non-economically active you need to have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden. * Baumbast, referral to the European court for a preliminary ruling considering the Baumbast family, German father, Columbian father, German daughters.

Mr Baumbast had previously been employed in the Uk but at the time was not economical active. Case concerned the family’s denial to reside in the UK. Could evoked article 21 TFEU conferred the rights to reside freely. Subject to limitations and conditions, these must be applied within the general principals of EU law in particular proportionality. The court could see they had sufficient resources and held health insurance in Germany the court held to deny the right to remain would have been disproportionate interference.

Confirming direct effect of Article 21. Grunkin and Paul, (also preliminary ruling) case with German parents who son was German but had lived in Denmark since birth. The parents had given the son a combination of the father and mothers surname. The Danish authorities had been okay with it but not the German authorities. German courts applied for preliminary ruling as to whether this was compatible with the citizen ship directive but the court refused as it wasn’t a court exercising a judicial function therefore could not give preliminary ruling.

Next time it came to the court the court said having to use a surname ifferent from that in the state registered in the state of birth and residence is liable to hamper the exercise to move and reside freely between member states. All Germany arguments for justification were rejected therefore the court concluded it was incompatible with Article 21 TFEU. * Zhu and Chen, baby Chen had been born in Belfast her mum had come to nothing Ireland in order to give birth as she know that under Irish law anyone born in Ireland would be an Irish citizen of birth. They then moved to the UK and the mum sort a permit to live which the home office rejected. The case is about the rejection of the permit.

She openly admitted had been to create this situation. Referred to ECJ, limitation and conditions referred to in Article 21. Court decides that child could reside in the UK as a citizen of the EU and the mother had sufficient resources and sickness insurance. The mother was entitled to live with the child as its primary career. Irrelevant they had come with the purpose to exploit the law, Ireland amended nationality law after. * Ruiz zambrano, concerned Columbian parent of minor children born in Belgium so nationals and EU citizens. Refused to grant the father a right of residence and a work permit.

CJ held that the refusal to grant the permit would have the effect of depriving the children of the genuine enjoyment of the rights conferred in EU citizenship. To deny residences would have meant the children having to leave the EU. Therefore would violate the citizenship provisions. Irrelevant that the children had never exercised their free movement rights. * McCarthey 2011, court is applying principals already applied in previous cases. Mrs McCarthey had lived in the UK and has dual UK/Irish nationality but never exercised her free movement rights. She wanted her third country national husband to obtain citizen rights.

Home office refused. The fact she was also an Irish national was not enough for article 21 TFEU to apply as not enough of a cross border element. Unlike Ruiz zambrano the British measure did not deprive her of the substance of the right as a union citizen. In Ruiz if the Columbian father had been denied they children would have had to leave with the EU interfering with the substance of the rights of the EU unlike in this case. As she could still move and live in the UK. * Article 18 TFEU which prohibits discrimination of ground of nationality within the scope of application of the treaties.

An EU citizen who is a resident in another member state can rely on this article on all situations that fall within the scope of EU law. Martines Sala, concerns a Spanish national raising a child in Germany who was declined child raising benefits because she didn’t have a resident permit. There was no such requirement for German nationals. This feel within the scope of EU law covered by social security regulations therefor clear there was discrimination on ground of nationality. Contrary to article 20 and 18. TFEU. Lecture 2 * Bidar, Frenchman came over with his grandma and living in the UK.

Applied for a student loan for uni. It was denied on ground he was a French national who was not settled in the UK meaning an unlimited right to remain. This was challenged. The court held that this violation of article 21 & 18. Uni loans fall within the scope of the treaties and it has been denied on ground of nationality. It was indirect discrimination in opposed to direct discrimination because the condition attached to the loan favoured British nationals rather than EU national. If indirect discrimination the state needs to justify it showing legitimate aim via propionate means.

It was perusing legitimate aim but due to impossibility to obtain settled status is was disproportionate to the objective. * Garcia Avello, Mr Avello came to Belgium and married a Belgium woman and had two children who were dual Belgium/Spanish nationals. The dispute was over the parents desire to change their surname. To a mixture of his and her last names in Spanish tradition, Belgium wouldn’t let them do this. This was challenged. The ECJ held there was unlawful discrimination on ground of nationality. They said he could rely on article 18 & 20 & 21 as there was a link to EU law as they were EU nationals.

There was also a cross border elements and the court held that the situation was likely to cause serious inconvenience to the children if the name they were known by in Spain was not allowed to be used in Belgium. Both privately and professionally. It used the same language as in McCarthey, that they couldn’t enjoy all the rights of EU citizenship. Citizens’ rights directive * Article 1 – subject matter of directive, lays down the conditions governing the conditions of free movement and residence, the rights of permits residence and the limits of such regulations.