Abstract
In all its activities, 4 the Union shall observe the principle of the equality 7–16 of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention 5,6 from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. 4 Every national of a Member State 29–37 shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship 17–25 of the Union shall be additional 38–42 to and not replace national citizenship.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Schönberger in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 3.
- 3.
Art. 119 EEC, then 141 EC, now Art. 157 TFEU.
- 4.
European Parliament, Report on the Lisbon Treaty, A6-0013/2008, p. 22.
- 5.
European Parliament, Report on the Lisbon Treaty, A6-0013/2008, p. 22–23.
- 6.
COM(2007) 412, p. 7.
- 7.
Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 16.
- 8.
Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.
- 9.
Kadelbach (2009) para 9.
- 10.
Dworkin (1977).
- 11.
Rawls (1973).
- 12.
Dworkin (1977), p. 180.
- 13.
Dworkin (1977), p. 272.
- 14.
Dworkin (1977), p. 273.
- 15.
Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.
- 16.
Kadelbach (2009), para 137.
- 17.
For an early but still valuable review of the scope of application of the pre-Charter EU fundamental rights as fundamental principles see Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig—Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw—Ordnungsamt (Opinion of AG Jacobs of 9 December 1992).
- 18.
Case 5/88 Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (ECJ 13 July 1989).
- 19.
Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others (ERT) (ECJ 18 June 1991), Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag (ECJ 26 June 1997).
- 20.
- 21.
For example, in Case C-108/10 Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Opinion of AG Bot of 5 April 2011): “In my view, the wording adopted by the authors of the Charter does not mean that they sought to restrict the scope of that Charter in relation to the case-law definition of the scope of the general principles of EU law. That is demonstrated by the explanations relating to Article 51(1) of the Charter, which, in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52 of the Charter, must be taken into account for the purpose of interpreting the Charter”. See also Case C-411/10 N. S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Opinion of AG Trstenjak of 22 September 2011), who similarly relied on the published Explanations relating to the Charter in O.J. C 303/32 (2007), particularly stressing that those Explanations cite the Wachauf and ERT judgments of the Court.
- 22.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para72.
- 23.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001). However, note the Court’s travails to circumscribe some of the limitations of the Directive and to expand the notion equal treatment rights in cases such as Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (ECJ 15 March 2005) and Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010). For Rottmann → para 33 et seqq. 37, 49.
- 24.
Art. 157.3 TFEU allows for the adoption of legislation by the ordinary legislative procedure.
- 25.
Perhaps the most noteworthy early pieces of legislation in this regard were Directive 76/207, concerning the implementation of equal pay for men and women, O.J. L 39/40 (1976) and Directive 79/7 regarding the implementation of equal treatment of men and women with regard to social security, O.J. L 6/24 (1979).
- 26.
For example the early Case 80/70 Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State (ECJ 25 May 1971) and Case C-177/88 Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus (ECJ 8 November 1990).
- 27.
Bell (2011).
- 28.
See for example the Long-Term Residents Directive 2003/109/EC regulating the status and (equal treatment) rights of third-country nationals, O.J. L 16/44 (2004). This directive does not apply in the UK, Ireland and Denmark.
- 29.
For an analysis of whether and how far the rights of third-country nationals are commensurate with or approximate equal treatment, see Halleskov (2005).
- 30.
Bell (2011), p. 638.
- 31.
Art. 18 TFEU reads: “Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to the special provisions therein, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.” Art. 21.1 EUCFR contains a near verbatim replication (→ para 17 et seqq.).
- 32.
- 33.
Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’) (ECJ 20 February 1979).
- 34.
- 35.
Bell (2011).
- 36.
For a sound review from a fundamental rights perspective see Bell (2010). This fundamental rights perspective on equal treatment of third-country nationals tallies with the fundamental principle reading of equality advanced here.
- 37.
Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 30 et seqq.
- 38.
Bell (2011).
- 39.
De Waele (2010).
- 40.
- 41.
Commission Report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, On Progress towards effective EU citizenship 2007–2010, COM(2010) 602 para 2.1.
- 42.
Art. 20 (2) TFEU, where the words “inter alia” were added by the Treaty of Lisbon.
- 43.
Horspool (2012), p. 285.
- 44.
Shaw (2008).
- 45.
Horspool (2012), p. 285.
- 46.
Kohler-Koch and Rittberger (2006), p. 16.
- 47.
Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 17 et seq., 23.
- 48.
Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 8 et seqq.
- 49.
Cuesta Lopez (2010), p. 125.
- 50.
Cuesta Lopez (2010), p. 131 et seq.
- 51.
Bull EC 12-1974, point 111. For a more detailed historical discussion see O’Keeffe (1994).
- 52.
Bull Supp 1/76.
- 53.
O.J. C 207/14 (1979).
- 54.
COM(88) 371 final.
- 55.
Europe No. 5252, 11 May 1990, p. 3.
- 56.
Towards a European Citizenship, Europe documents, No. 1653, 2 October 1990.
- 57.
Bull Supp 2/91.
- 58.
Bull Supp 2/91.
- 59.
Bindi Report on Union Citizenship, PE Doc. A 3-0139/91, 23 May 1991.
- 60.
International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v Guatamala (‘Nottebohm’) (Judgment of 6 April 1955) ICJ Rep. 4, p. 23. See also Art.1 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws. On the development of ius sanguinis and ius soli principles for determining nationality, see Shaw (2008), p. 659 et seq. Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) establishes that every individual has the right to a nationality, which the state cannot deprive in an arbitrary manner.
- 61.
European Commission, DG Justice, Freedom and Security: Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, 3rd ed., http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_12892_168517401.pdf.
- 62.
4 March 2013.
- 63.
See, e.g., the Declaration on Nationality of a Member State attached to the 1992 TEU. This had asserted that “the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned” (emphasis added).
- 64.
Cf. International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v Guatamala (‘Nottebohm’) (Judgment of 6 April 1955) ICJ Rep. 4, where a genuine link is required between a person and a state for there to be an “effective” nationality in international law. See further, Ruzié (1993).
- 65.
Case C-369/90 Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria (ECJ 7 July 1992) para 10.
- 66.
Case C-179/98 Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah (ECJ 11 November 1999) para 29.
- 67.
Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001).
- 68.
Case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 19 October 2004) para 37.
- 69.
For example, Case C-274/96 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz (ECJ 24 November 1998) para 17 (national provisions in the sphere of criminal legislation and rules of criminal procedure); Case C-148/02 Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgium (ECJ 2 October 2003) para 25 (national rules governing names); Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München (ECJ 12 July 2005) para 19 (national rules on direct taxation); Case C-145/04 Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ECJ 12 September 2006) para 78 and Case C-300/04 M. G. Eman and O. B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (ECJ 12 September 2006) para 61 (national rules relating to persons entitled to vote and stand in elections to the EP).
- 70.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 42 (emphasis added).
- 71.
Cf. Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 11, who had stressed the fact of movement between two MS as the trigger for the relevance of EU law.
- 72.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 56.
- 73.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 51.
- 74.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 56.
- 75.
This itself was hinted at in Rottmann when the Court referred to the relevance of its principles for the Austrian court that might hear any attempt by the applicant to retrieve his Austrian nationality: see Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 63. Such a position would require reconsideration of Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001), which was expressly distinguished by the Grand Chamber in Rottmann (para 49).
- 76.
For example via Association and Cooperation Agreements concluded between the EU and Third Countries. TCNs will also be beneficiaries of other general measures, such as Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, O.J. L 251/12 (2003).
- 77.
Bull-EU, 10-1999.
- 78.
Council Directive 2003/109 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, O.J. L 16/44 (2004).
- 79.
European Commission, DG Justice, Freedom and Security: Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, chapter 5.
- 80.
The concept of “civic citizen” derives from three main constitutive elements: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Immigration, Integration and the Role of Civil Society, SOC/075, CES 365/2002; Commission Communication on a Community immigration policy COM(2000) 757 final para 3.5; Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment, COM(2003) 336. See further, Perchinig (2006).
- 81.
See further De Waele (2010).
- 82.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011).
- 83.
- 84.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 30.
- 85.
See further, Margiotta and Vonk (2010), esp. section 5.
- 86.
See Jessurun d’Oliveira (1994).
- 87.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/edinburgh/b3_en.pdf, “Nothing in the [TEU] implies or foresees an undertaking to create a citizenship of the Union in the sense of citizenship of a nation-state…”
- 88.
CONV 369/02, 28 October 2002; see http://european-convention.eu.int/.
- 89.
- 90.
Bellamy (2008).
- 91.
- 92.
De Waele (2010).
- 93.
Shaw (2011).
- 94.
Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 479.
- 95.
For example the seminal study by Shaw (2007).
- 96.
Case C-145/04 Spain v United Kingdom (ECJ 12 September 2006).
- 97.
Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 480.
- 98.
Bell (2007), p. 311.
- 99.
Case C-300/04 Eman & Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (ECJ 12 September 2006).
- 100.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 178—Lisbon.
- 101.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 212—Lisbon.
- 102.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 217 and 218—Lisbon. This eternity clause in enshrined in Art. 79.3 of the Basic Law.
- 103.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 280—Lisbon.
- 104.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 272—Lisbon.
- 105.
For a discussion of audit democracy and alternative models in relation to the Lisbon judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, see Eriksen and Fossum (2011).
- 106.
Eriksen and Fossum (2011), esp. p. 160.
- 107.
German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 252—Lisbon.
- 108.
Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig—Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw—Ordnungsamt (Opinion of AG Jacobs of 9 December 1992) para 46.
- 109.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.
- 110.
For example Case C-224/98 Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 28; Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 17 September 2002) para 82; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello (ECJ 2 October 2003) para 22; Case C-224/02 Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 16; Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen (ECJ 19 October 2004) para 25; Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (ECJ 15 March 2005) para 31; Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München (ECJ 12 July 2005) para 15; Case C-524/06 Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 16 December 2008) para 69.
- 111.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 43 (emphasis added).
- 112.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 41.
- 113.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 42.
- 114.
Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 17 September 2002).
- 115.
Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen (ECJ 19 October 2004).
- 116.
Borgmann-Prebil (2008).
- 117.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.
- 118.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 42.
- 119.
- 120.
Heilbronner and Thym (2011), p. 1256.
- 121.
Nettesheim (2011), p. 1031.
- 122.
Nettesheim (2011), p. 1036, “Lebensumfeld” in the German original.
- 123.
Nettesheim (2011), p. 1031.
- 124.
Case C-434/09 McCarthy (ECJ 5 May 2011).
- 125.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011).
- 126.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 64 et seqq.
- 127.
Nettesheim (2011), p. 1033.
- 128.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 66.
- 129.
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 68.
- 130.
Nettesheim (2011), p. 1033.
- 131.
- 132.
Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.
- 133.
Shaw (2011).
- 134.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 23.
- 135.
Shaw (2011).
Table of Cases
ECJ 25.05.1971, 80/70, Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State, ECR 445 [cit. in para 10]
ECJ 20.02.1979, 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’), ECR 649 [cit. in para 13]
ECJ 13.07.1989, 5/88, Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, ECR 2609 [cit. in para 7]
ECJ 08.11.1990, C-177/88, Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus, ECR I-3941[cit. in para 10]
ECJ 18.06.1991, C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others (ERT), ECR I-2925 [cit. in para 7]
ECJ 07.07.1992, C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, ECR I-4239 [cit. in para 31]
ECJ, 30.11.1995, C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano ECR I-4165 [cit. in para 13]
ECJ 26.06.1997, C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag ECR I-3689 [cit. in para 7]
ECJ 12.05.1998, C-85/96, María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern, ECR I-2691 [cit. in para 13]
ECJ 24.11.1998, C-274/96, Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz, ECR I-7637 [cit. in para 31]
ECJ 11.11.1999, C-179/98, Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah, ECR I-7955 [cit. in para 31]
ECJ 20.02.2001, C-192/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, ECR I-1237 [cit. in para 31]
ECJ 20.09.2001, C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, ECR I- 6193 [cit. in para 9; 49; 51]
ECJ 11.07.2002, C-224/98, Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi ECR I-6191 [cit. in para 49]
ECJ 17.09.2002, C-413/99, Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECR I-7091 [cit. in para 49; 51]
ECJ 02.10.2003, C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State, ECR I-11613 [cit. in para 31; 49]
ECJ 29.04.2004, C-224/02, Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö, ECR I-5763 [cit. in para 49]
ECJ 19.10.2004, C-200/02, Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECR I-9925 [cit. in para 31; 37; 49; 51]
ECJ 12.07.2005, C-403/03, Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München, ECR I-6421 [cit. in para 31; 49]
ECJ 12.09.2006, C-145/04, Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [cit. in para 31; 44]
ECJ 12.09.2006, C-300/04, M. G. Eman and O. B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag [cit. in para 31; 44]
ECJ 16.12.2008, C-524/06, Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECR I-9705 [cit. in para 49]
ECJ 02.03.2010, C-135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, ECR I-1449 [cit. in para 9; 32–34; 37; 49; 55]
ECJ 08.05.2011, C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) [cit. in para 37; 49; 51]
ECJ 05.04.2011, C-108/10, Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca [cit. in para 7]
ECJ 05.05.2011, C-434/09, McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [cit. in para 53]
ECJ 15.11.2011, C-256/11, Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres [cit. in para 7; 54]
References
Alexy, R. (2000). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: OUP.
Bell, M. (2007). Civic citizenship and migrant integration. Environment People Law, 13(2), 311–333.
Bell, M. (2010). Irregular migrants: Beyond the limits of solidarity? In M. Ross & Y. Borgmann-Prebil (Eds.), Promoting solidarity in the European Union (pp. 151–165). Oxford: OUP.
Bell, M. (2011). The principle of equal treatment: Widening and deepening. In P. Craig & G. De Búrca (Eds.), The evolution of EU Law (2nd ed., pp. 611–640). Oxford: OUP.
Bellamy, R. (2008). Evaluating Union citizenship: Belonging, rights and participation within the EU. Citizenship Studies, 12(6), 597–611.
Borgmann-Prebil, Y. (2008). The rule of reason in European citizenship. European Law Journal, 14(3), 328–350.
Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuesta Lopez, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty's provisions on democratic principles: A legal framework for participatory democracy. European Public Law, 16(1), 123–138.
De Waele, H. (2010). EU citizenship: Revisiting its meaning, place and potential. European Journal of Migration and Law, 12(3), 319–336.
Dougan, M. (2006). The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship. European Law Review, 31(5), 613–641.
Dougan, M. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning minds not hearts. Common Market Law Review, 45(3), 617–703.
Dougan, M., & Spaventa, E. (2005). Wish you weren’t here! New models of social solidarity in the European Union. In M. Dougan & E. Spaventa (Eds.), Social welfare and EU law (pp. 180–208). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Duff, A. (2005). The struggle for Europe’s constitution. London: Federal Trust.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.
Egger, A. (2006). EU-fundamental rights in the national legal order: The obligations of Member States revisited. Yearbook of European Law, 25(1), 515–553.
Elsmore, M., & Starup, P. (2007). Union citizenship – background, jurisprudence, and perspective – the past, present, and future of law and policy. Yearbook of European Law, 26(1), 57–113.
Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2011). Bringing European democracy back in – or how to read the German Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Treaty ruling. European Law Journal, 17(2), 153–171.
Grabitz, R., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2011). Das Recht der Europäischen Union, loose leaf. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Halleskov, L. (2005). The long-term residents directive: A fulfilment of the Tampere objective of near-equality? European Journal of Migration and Law, 7, 181–201.
Heilbronner, K., & Thym, D. (2011). Case commentary on Ruiz Zembrano. Common Market Law Review, 48(4), 1253–1270.
Horspool, M. (2012). The concept of citizenship in the European Union. I. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 279–294). Berlin: Springer.
Jacobs, F. (2001). Human rights in the EU: The role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review, 26(4), 331–341 et seqq.
Jacqué, J. P. (2002). La Charte des droits fundamentaux de l’Union européenne: aspects juridiques généraux. Revue Européenne de Droit Public, 14(1), 107–126.
Jessurun d’Oliveira, H. U. (1994). European citizenship: Its meaning, its potential. In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Europe after Maastricht: An ever closer union? (pp. 126–148). Munich: Law Books in Europe.
Kadelbach, S. (2009). Citizenship rights in Europe. In D. Ehlers (Ed.), European fundamental rights and freedoms (pp. 541–574). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kochenov, D. (2010a). The puzzle of citizenship and territory in the EU: On European rights overseas. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 17(3), 230–251.
Kochenov, D. (2010b). Rounding up the circle: The mutation of Member States’ nationalities under pressure from EU citizenship (EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2010/23).
Kohler-Koch, B., & Ritterberger, B. (2006). The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU studies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(1), 27–49.
Lenaerts, K., & Gutiérrez-Fons, J. (2010). The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Review, 47(6), 1629–1669.
Margiotta, C., & Vonk, O. (2010). Nationality law and European citizenship: The role of dual nationality (EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2010/66).
Nettesheim, M. (2011). Der “Kernbereich” der Unionsbürgerschaft – vom Schutz der Mobilität zur Gewährung eines Lebensumfelds. Juristen Zeitung, 66(21), 1030–1037.
O’Keeffe, D. (1994). Union citizenship. In D. O’Keeffe, & P. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht Treaty (pp. 87–108 et seqq). Chichester: Chancery Law Publishing.
Perchinig, B. (2006). EU citizenship and the status of Third Country Nationals. In R. Bauböck (Ed.), Migration and citizenship: Legal status, rights and political participation (IMISCOE Reports, (pp. 67–82 et seqq). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Rawls, J. (1973). A theory of justice. Oxford: OUP.
Reh, C. (2009). The Lisbon Treaty: De-constitutionalizing the European Union? Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), 625–650.
Ruzié, D. (1993). Nationalité, effectivité et droit communautaire. Revue générale de droit international public, 107–120.
Schrauwen, A. (2008, March). The Future of EU Citizenship: Corrosion of national citizenship?. Conference paper Birmingham. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375413. Accessed 1 Mar 2012.
Shaw, J. (2007). The transformation of citizenship in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Accessed 1 March 2012).
Shaw, M. (2008). International law (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, J. (2011). Citizenship: Contrasting dynamics at the interface of integration and constitutionalism (EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2010/60).
Snell, J. (2010). The notion of market access: A concept or a slogan? Common Market Law Review, 47(2), 437–472.
Spaventa, E. (2004). From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (non-)economic European constitution. Common Market Law Review, 41(3), 743–773 et seqq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 9 [The Principle of Equality and Citizenship of the Union]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31705-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31706-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)