Citizenship

Question 1

Citizenship Article:

Answer 1

Article 20(1) TFEU

Question 2

R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte VItale and Do Amaral:

Answer 2

Facts: had no jobs, and no signs of getting one. Claimed income support. Argued had general right to remain as EU citizens.
Principle: neither the right to move freely nor the right to reside were absolute and were subject to the limitations of the Treaties.

Question 3

Kremzow v Austria:

Answer 3

Facts: due to their EU citizenship, argued should be protected by EU law with regard to criminal proceedings.
Principle: the Court refused to give an all-encompassing right to a citizen, it is not a blanket right.

Question 4

Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, Article:

Answer 4

Article 18 TFEU. Has allowed the EU to combine the two concepts of citizenship and non-discrimination.

Question 5

Gryzelczyk v Centre Public d’aide sociale

Answer 5

Facts: French student who applied for Belgian social security benefit, was refused.
Principle: held that the only thing stopping the student from getting the benefit was his nationality, a Belgian student in the same situation would have been entitled to that benefit. Incompatible with Article 18.
Court: “enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality’.

Question 6

Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department:

Answer 6

EU citizenship rights were enforceable regardless of age, in a situation where a child born in EU of foreign parents was able to have their citizenship rights asserted on their behalf.

Question 7

Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department:

Answer 7

A right of access to education for children of migrant workers established.