EU Citizenship: Flashcards
What does Art 21(1) TFEU state
provides that “every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”.
provides that “every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”.
Art 21(1) TFEU
what are the three grounds for justification of Art 21?
justifications on the ground of public health, public security and public policy.
Art 21(1) includes an important limitation, what is this?
: the free movement right is “subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect”.
Art 21(1) includes an important limitation, he free movement right is “subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect”. why is this important?
because it suggests that the free movement right can also be restricted by secondary law.
What case did the COJ hold that
Union citizenship is destined to be to the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States,
Grzelyck
Union citizenship is destined to be to the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States,
which case?
Union citizenship is destined to be to the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States,
Grzelyck
Where has most of the Court of Justice’s case law under Article 21 and 18 TFEU been codified?
Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC.
what is an issue with the fact that most of the Court of Justice’s case law under Article 21 and 18 TFEU been codified by Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC.
It could be argued that this focus on secondary law, i.e. on a directive, has restricted the Court’s ability to develop its case law on EU citizenship
the Court of Justice is bound – and restricted by – the wording of the Citizens’ Rights Directive,
Which case demonstrates the fact the Court is now restricted by Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC. ?
Dano; adopted a restrictive interpretation
Dano demonstrates the fact the Court is now restricted by Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC. , what did they hold in this case?
EU citizens who are not lawfully resident in another Member State on the basis of the Directive do not enjoy a right to equal treatment
how can indirect discriminatory cases also be justified ?
on the basis of “public interest requirements” or “objective requirements”.
What is The Citizens’ Rights Directive an example of
harmonisation in the field of EU citizenship
The extensive scope of the Citizens’ Rights Directive means that most citizenship cases will be decided on the basis of the Directive
What if the case falls outside the scope of application?
assessed under Art 20-21 TFEU
What are the three categories in Citizens Rights Directive for condition for Union citizens to enjoy a right of residence?
up to 3 months- no conditions
more than 3 months- workers, or self-employed, have sufficient resources, a student, family members
right of permanent residence after 5 years
what does art 14(1) state?
that Union citizens shall have the right of residence as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance of the host Member States.
Article 14(4)(b) makes it clear that Union citizens who have entered another Member State to seek employment enjoy a right of residence on two conditions what are they?
they have to be:
a. actively looking for work (which could be seen as a subjective requirement – it is in the control of the job seeker) and
b. they have to have a reasonable chance of finding employment (this is more of an objective test – does the job seeker have a real chance of finding work?).
Is the directive about quantitative or qualitative integration in the host Member State, what did Omukwere state?
that a period of imprisonment in the host Member State does not count towards acquiring a right of permanent residence in that Member State
What was the Court opinion in Dano and alimanovic?
that Union citizens who do not enjoy a right of residence on the basis of the Directive do not enjoy a right to equal treatment.
