Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dynamics of European Citizenship: From Bourgeois to Citoyen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence

Abstract

In line with the constitutional moment of the Maastricht Treaty a shift from economic to political integration was started. With regard to the status of the citizen this prepared a change as well. Following from the ground breaking van Gend and Loos decision of the Court, the citizens of the Member States gained—corresponding to the goal of achieving an internal market—a rather functional status as market citizens. With the introduction of Union citizenship, this status widened to a more political status, defined by individual rights. The jurisdiction of the Court paved the way, by interpreting today’s Article 21 TFEU as an individual right and developing the status of the EU citizen by the principle of non discrimination independent from an economic context. This new dynamic of EU citizenship challenges at the same time political competences of the Member States. Consequently it might be time to rethink the relationship of Articles 20, 21 and 18 TFEU on the one hand as well as fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights on the other hand in the light of their function.

Prof. Dr. Christian Calliess, M.A.E.S. (Bruges), LL.M. is Professor for Public Law and European Law at the Free University of Berlin. He holds an ad personam Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration and is Judge at the High Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) of Berlin and Brandenburg.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    de Winter 2004, p. 152 et seq. (158).

  2. 2.

    Haltern 2001, p. 6.

  3. 3.

    Haltern 2001, p. 11 f.

  4. 4.

    AG Jacobs, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-168/91 Konstantinidis [1993] ECR I-1191, para 46.

  5. 5.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Hailbronner 2004, p. 2185 (2186 et seq.); Haltern 2005, p. 503 et seq.

  7. 7.

    Case 26/62 van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1/26 (II. B.).

  8. 8.

    Ruffert 1996, p. 220 et seq., 296; Masing 1997, p. 42 et seq.; Wegener 1998, p. 41 et seq.; Calliess 2005, p. 931.

  9. 9.

    Masing 1997, p. 42 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Case C-378/97 Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207, para 84.

  11. 11.

    Term from Ipsen 1972, pp. 187, 250 et seq.; cf. Ipsen and Nicolaysen 1964, p. 340, para 2.

  12. 12.

    Similiar Kadelbach 2007, p. 542 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Grabitz 1970, p. 68.

  14. 14.

    See Marshall 1950, p. 27.

  15. 15.

    v. Bogdandy 2001, p. 170.

  16. 16.

    AG Sharpston, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR 00000, para 127.

  17. 17.

    See Calliess 2007, p. 16.

  18. 18.

    See Pernice 2009, p. 364 et seq.; Calliess 2011, Article 1 TEU, para 36 et seq.

  19. 19.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31.

  20. 20.

    AG Colomer in Case 341/08 Petersen [2010] ECR I-47, para 15.

  21. 21.

    Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR 00000, para 45.

  22. 22.

    This conclusion is drawn by Borchardt 2000, p. 2058.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, para 62.

  24. 24.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 33.

  25. 25.

    Case C-378/97 Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207, para 84.

  26. 26.

    See Calliess 2007, p. 16; confirming Purnhagen and Mann 2011, p. 7, fn. 8.

  27. 27.

    Case C-369/90 Micheletti [1992] ECR I-4239, paras 10, 12.

  28. 28.

    AG Maduro, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-135/08 Rottmann [2009] ECR I-1449, para 23.

  29. 29.

    Case C-135/08 Rottmann [2010] ECR I-1449.

  30. 30.

    Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR 00000, para 42.

  31. 31.

    Hailbronner and Thym 2011, p. 2010 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Case C-256/11 Dereci and others [2011] ECR 00000, para 66.

  33. 33.

    Calliess 2011, Article 1 TEU, para 36 et seq.; idem 2007, p. 16.

  34. 34.

    Cf. Case C-413/99 Baumbast und R [2002] ECR I-7091, paras 84 et seq.; in contrast Pechstein and Bunk 1997, pp. 549, 554; Hailbronner 2004, p. 2188.

  35. 35.

    Case C-413/99 Baumbast und R [2002] ECR I-7091, paras 86 and 91.

  36. 36.

    E.g. Gebauer 2004, p. 212 et seq.

  37. 37.

    Kingreen 2004, p. 572; Seyr and Rümke 2005, p. 667; Kokott 2005, p. 2, Wollenschläger 2007, p. 374; Case F-7/08 DEP Schönberger [2010].

  38. 38.

    Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191, para 29; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I-11613, para 24; Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 33. Slightly different wording, with what the same might be meant in Case C-274/98 Bickel und Franz [1994] ECR I-7637, paras 15, 16; Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 33; Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763, para 17; Case C-403/03 Schempp [2005] ECR I-6421, para 18; Case C-520/04 Turpeinen [2006] ECR I-10685, para 19.

  39. 39.

    Case C-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, para 33, but see also para 39.

  40. 40.

    AG Tizzano, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, para 73.

  41. 41.

    AG Geelhoed, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 45; idem in Advocate General’s opinion in Case Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paras 62, 69.

  42. 42.

    E.g. AG Jacobs, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763, para 12 et seq.; AG Léger, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-520/04 Turpeinen [2006] ECR I-10685, paras 62 et seq.

  43. 43.

    AG Kokott, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas [2006] ECR I-10451, paras 23 et seq.

  44. 44.

    See also Seyr and Rümke 2005, p. 672.

  45. 45.

    Calliess 2007, p. 26.

  46. 46.

    Kingreen 2007, pp. 44 et seq.; Wollenschläger 2007, p. 374.

  47. 47.

    Cf. the distinction between the right of freedom of movement and other fundamental freedoms in the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-470/04 N [2006] ECR I-7409, paras 22 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Cf. e.g. Case C-76/90 Säger v Dennemeyer [1991] ECR I-4221, paras 13 and 14.

  49. 49.

    AG Jacobs, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763, paras 20–22.

  50. 50.

    AG Geelhoed, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-406/04 De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947, paras 104, 107, 108.

  51. 51.

    AG Léger, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-520/04 Turpeinen [2006] ECR I-10685, para 22.

  52. 52.

    AG Geelhoed, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-406/04 De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947, para 39.

  53. 53.

    Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06 Morgan [2007] ECR I-9161, paras 28 et seq; Case C-353/06 Grunkin and Paul [2008] ECR I-7639, paras 20 et seq.

  54. 54.

    Confirmed in Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen und Tas [2006] ECR 10451, para 31.

  55. 55.

    Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06 Morgan [2007] ECR I-9161, paras 28 et seq; Case C-353/06 Grunkin and Paul [2008] ECR I-7639, paras 20 et seq.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Kingreen 2007, pp. 43 et seq.

  57. 57.

    Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, paras 62 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 33.

  59. 59.

    Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, paras 31 et seq.

  60. 60.

    Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, para 65.

  61. 61.

    Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paras 9 et seq.

  62. 62.

    Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paras 31 et seq.

  63. 63.

    Case C-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, paras 42 et seq.

  64. 64.

    Hailbronner 2004, pp. 2185 et seq.; Herzog and Gerken 2008.

  65. 65.

    Case 186/87 Cowan [1989] ECR 195, para 10.

  66. 66.

    Joined Cases 35 and 36/82 Morson [1982] ECR 3723, para 16.

  67. 67.

    Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, para 15; Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, para 18.

  68. 68.

    AG Poiares Maduro, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-72/03 Carbonati Apuani [2004] ECR I-8027, para 67; Lenaerts 1991, p. 3 et seq.

  69. 69.

    Kingreen 2007, p. 43 et seq.

  70. 70.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paras 42 and 43; Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, para 45, Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 47.

  71. 71.

    Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paras 43 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, para 45.

  73. 73.

    Cf. e.g. Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, paras 56 and 57.

  74. 74.

    See Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR 00000, para 45.

  75. 75.

    See Ehlers 2007a, b, pp. 175 et seq., 371 et seq.

  76. 76.

    A good example is the decision of the ECJ in Case C-60/00 Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279, para 38.

  77. 77.

    See e.g. Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, para 35 and Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, para 74.

  78. 78.

    See on the one hand AG Sharpston, Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR 00000, para 127 and BVerfGE 123, 267, para 339 et seq. on the other hand.

References

  • Borchardt K (2000) Der sozialrechtliche Gehalt der Unionsbürgerschaft. NJW:2057–2061

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2005) Grundlagen, Grenzen und Perspektiven europäischen Richterrechts. NJW:929–933

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2007) Der Unionsbürger: Status, Dogmatik und Dynamik. In: Hatje A, Huber PM (eds) Unionsbürgerschaft und soziale Rechte, EuR Beiheft 01, pp 7–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2011) Commentary. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV-Kommentar, 4th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • de Winter L (2004) Wo steckt Europas Seele? Der Spiegel 19:152–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers D (2007) The fundamental freedoms of the European Communities. General principles. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. de Gruyter Textbook, Berlin, pp 175–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers D (2007) The fundamental rights of the European Union. General principles. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. de Gruyter Textbook, Berlin, pp 371–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer J (2004) Die Grundfreiheiten des EG-Vertrages als Gemeinschaftsgrundrechte. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz E (1970) Europäisches Bürgerrecht zwischen Marktbürgerschaft und Staatsbürgerschaft. Europa Union Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner K (2004) Die Unionsbürgerschaft und das Ende rationaler Jurisprudenz durch den EuGH? NJW:2185–2189

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner K, Thym D (2011) Ruiz Zambrano – Die Entdeckung des Kernbereichs der Unionsbürgerschaft. NJW:2008–2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltern U (2001) Europe goes camper. The EU Charter of fundamental rights from a consumerist perspective, constitutionalism web-papers, ConWEB No. 3/2001, 1–15. http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/FileStore/ConWEBFiles/Filetoupload,38357,en.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2012

  • Haltern U (2005) Europarecht, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog R, Gerken L (2008) Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof. FAZ, No. 210/8.9.2008, 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen H (1972) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen H, Nicolaysen G (1964) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht im Hochschulstudium und Bericht über die aktuelle Entwicklung des Gemeinschaftsrechts. NJW:961–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (2007) European citizenship rights. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. de Gruyter Textbook, Berlin, pp 541–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingreen T (2004) Theorie und Dogmatik der Grundrechte im europäischen Verfassungsrecht, EuGRZ:570–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingreen T (2007) Die Universalisierung sozialer Rechte im europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht. In: Hatje A, Huber PM (eds) Unionsbürgerschaft und soziale Rechte. EuR Beiheft 1, pp 43–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J (2005) EU citizenship—citoyens sans frontières? Durham European Law Institute, European Law Lecture

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (1991) L’égalité de traitement en droit communautaire. Un principe unique aux apparences multiples, CDE, 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall T (1950) Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Masing J (1997) Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein M, Bunk A (1997) Das Aufenthaltsrecht als Auffangrecht. EuGRZ:547–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2009) The Treaty of Lisbon: multilevel constitutionalism in action. Columbia J Eur Law 15:349–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen K, Mann D-J (2011) The nature of Union Citizenship between autonomy and dependency on (Member) State Citizenship: a comparative analysis of the Rottmann ruling, or: How to avoid a European Dred Scott decision. Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance Research Paper No. 2011-09

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert M (1996) Subjektive Rechte im Umweltrecht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Unter besonderen Berücksichtigung ihrer prozessualen Durchsetzung. Umwelt- und Technikrecht, vol 33. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyr S, Rümke H-C (2005) Das grenzüberschreitende Element in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH zur Unionsbürgerschaft. EuR:667–675

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A (2001) Grundrechtsgemeinschaft als Integrationsziel? JZ:157–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener B (1998) Rechte des Einzelnen. Die Interessenklage im europäischen Umweltrecht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden–Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenschläger F (2007) Grundfreiheit ohne Markt - Die Herausbildung der Unionsbürgerschaft im unionsrechtlichen Freizügigkeitsregime. Mohr Siebeck Verlag, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christian Calliess

Authors
  1. Christian Calliess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Calliess .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Calliess, C. (2013). The Dynamics of European Citizenship: From Bourgeois to Citoyen. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_23

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Societies and partnerships

    Search

    Navigation