Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- Deprivation of Citizenship, Statelessness, and International Standards -- The Council of Europe and Nationality -- Un-becoming an EU Citizen: Deprivation of Citizenship and EU Law -- Deprivation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom: Citizenship as Privilege -- Deprivation of Citizenship in France: Paper Frenchmen, Universal Citizenship and the Principle of Assimilation -- Deprivation of Citizenship in Germany: Accommodating Public and Private Interests -- Conclusions -- Literature -- Index.
Traveling freely, smoothly and unburdened by excessive formalities and the adjoining right to reside in another EU state for work, leisure or study are the hallmarks of the mobility regime applicable to EU citizens and their family members. Measures taken by the majority of EU states to deal with Covid-19 have severely disrupted EU mobility and led to the reestablishment of internal border controls, the introduction of restrictions to travel and even travel bans. These obstacles to mobility have highlighted the EU economy's reliance on EU migrant labor in several sectors, which was further exacerbated by the introduction of an EU travel ban at the external border. This contribution discusses measures taken by Romania that sought to restrict travel to and from Romania, while simultaneously allowing exceptions for nationals to travel to other EU states as essential workers. The Romanian response is discussed in relation to the wider EU attempts to reply to the proliferation of national measures affecting EU free movement and the functioning of the internal market and as an illustration of the need to ensure that mobility goes hand in hand with protection.
The United Kingdom has amended its nationality legislation in order to make it easier for the state to exercise citizenship deprivation powers. The new powers target citizens who have engaged in behaviours labelled by the UK executive as not conducive to the public good. Statelessness operates as the outer limit of the government's capacity to transform citizens into foreigners and plays an important role in limiting the exercise of executive powers.
The legal category under which EU citizens exercise their right to free movement – worker, jobseeker, student or economically inactive - determines access to social rights in the host state and leads to differential inclusion in the welfare state. The right to equal treatment in relation to welfare entitlements has been subject to constant litigation before the European Court of Justice, leading to the refinement of the conditions under which migrant EU citizens can access welfare and the implications of such requests for their right to reside in an EU state. Moreover, while the conditions of access to an EU host state's welfare system are set at the EU level, the delivery of welfare takes place at the national and local levels, making national administrations and bureaucrats important actors in the governance of welfare. The aim of this article is to tease out the relationship between different levels of jurisdiction in the governance of access to the welfare state. We rely on data from 11 Member States in which we monitored the application of the relevant EU legislation and case law during the time frame 2016–2020. The main trends we discern are a growing interdependence between immigration and welfare authorities and a move towards the systematic control of all EU applicants for social assistance in several states. We argue that these developments are facilitated by the turn in the CJEU's jurisprudence that limits entitlement to welfare for economically inactive EU citizens and emphasises conditionality and legal residence as the main axes determining access to the welfare state.
This article examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the social rights of mobile EU citizens from the perspective of European integration theory. Our aim is to situate the effects of EU jurisprudence in 3 Member States – Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK and examine to what extent the selected Member States change their policies on social rights in relation to CJEU jurisprudence. Europeanization through law has been described as one of the most powerful meta-narratives of European integration: the adoption of common laws and standards coupled with the primacy and direct effect of EU law force the Member States to adjust their national policies and legislations in order to comply with EU rules. Europeanization literature has taken a keen interest in legislative acts, and although the importance of CJEU jurisprudence is acknowledged, Europeanization through case law remains a somewhat lesser explored area. The argument put forward in this article is that although EU legislative measures remain an important source of Europeanization of the welfare state, CJEU decisions play an equally important role in clarifying Member State obligations towards economically inactive mobile EU citizens. ; Este artículo examina la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE), en relación a los derechos sociales de ciudadanos comunitarios que migran dentro de la UE, y lo hacen desde la perspectiva de la teoría de la integración europea. Nuestro objetivo es analizar los efectos de la jurisprudencia comunitaria entre Estados Miembros -Alemania, los Países Bajos, y el Reino Unido- para ver hasta qué punto modifican sus políticas de derechos sociales en base a dicha jurisprudencia. La europeización a través de la ley (europeanisation through law) ha sido descrita como una de las más poderosas meta-narrativas de la integración europea: la adopción de leyes y estándares comunes junto con la primacía y efecto directo del derecho comunitario fuerzan a los Estados Miembros a ajustar sus políticas y legislaciones nacionales para poder cumplir con las normas de la UE. La literatura sobre europeización se ha centrado fundamentalmente en los actos legislativos, pero si bien la importancia de la jurisprudencia del TJUE es bien conocida, la europeización a través del derecho consuetudinario es un área menos explorada. El argumento defendido en este artículo es que las decisiones de la TJUE juegan un papel igualmente importante a la hora de clarificar las obligaciones de los Estados Miembros hacia los ciudadanos de la UE económicamente inactivos.
In this article, we seek to place the CJEU's recent case law on social rights for economically inactive EU citizens within the larger political context of the last couple of years that has been characterized by the increased contestation of the type of mobility underpinning EU citizenship. The relationship between EU citizenship and social solidarity – in the form of social rights for mobile EU citizens – has taken centre stage during the Brexit affair. Political debates concerning the free movement of (poor) EU citizens have focused upon the issues of the abuse of free movement rights and welfare tourism, despite a lack of evidence that the two are actually taking place on a large scale within the EU. The now defunct Brexit deal highlights the extension of debates that initially focused on economically inactive EU citizens to EU workers, whose mobility had been considered a positive aspect of EU integration. The scope of social solidarity in the EU is demoted as a result of judicial and political interventions that question the social dimension of EU citizenship and which may have implications for other groups of migrants situated within the EU.
This article examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the social rights of mobile EU citizens from the perspective of European integration theory. Our aim is to situate the effects of EU jurisprudence in 3 Member States – Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK and examine to what extent the selected Member States change their policies on social rights in relation to CJEU jurisprudence. Europeanization through law has been described as one of the most powerful meta-narratives of European integration: the adoption of common laws and standards coupled with the primacy and direct effect of EU law force the Member States to adjust their national policies and legislations in order to comply with EU rules. Europeanization literature has taken a keen interest in legislative acts, and although the importance of CJEU jurisprudence is acknowledged, Europeanization through case law remains a somewhat lesser explored area. The argument put forward in this article is that although EU legislative measures remain an important source of Europeanization of the welfare state, CJEU decisions play an equally important role in clarifying Member State obligations towards economically inactive mobile EU citizens.
Political debates concerning the free movement of (poor) EU citizens (mainly from the newer EU Member States) have focused upon the twin issues of abuse of free movement rights and welfare tourism, despite the lack of meaningful evidence that the two are actually taking place on a wide scale in the EU. This article discusses the increasing political contestation of EU mobility as captured by notions such as, welfare tourism and poverty migration. The analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on issues of social rights and EU citizenship shows a noticeable shift towards stricter interpretations of the scope of social solidarity for mobile EU citizens. We argue that the coupling of these two aspects of EU mobility raises questions about the scope of EU citizenship and its nature as a fundamental status.
Migration on the move : an introduction / Carolus Grutters, Sandra Mantu, and Paul Minderhoud -- Changing paradigms in migration law research / Thomas Spijkerboer -- Sexuality, race, and masculinity in Europe's refugee crisis / Betty de Hart -- Free movement of workers : some reflections / Paul Minderhoud -- Two decades EU migration law for third country nationals / Tineke Strik -- Current protection dilemmas in the European Union / Jens Vedsted-Hansen -- Governing migration in an age of globalization / James Hollifield and Rahfin Faruk -- Hotspots, cold fact : managing migration by selecting migrants / Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche -- Turkey's role in EU migration law and policy : Turkeys voting for Christmas / Margarite Helena Zoeteweij and Ozan Turhan -- EU inclusion and exclusion : from workers to citizens to people / Elspeth Guild -- Alternative views on EU citizenship / Sandra Mantu -- Access to justice for asylum seekers : is the right to seek and enjoy asylum only black letter law? / Ashley Terlouw -- Navigating migration policies in Europe : insights from the field / Asuncion Fresnoza-Flot -- Brexit : free movement of Union citizens and the rights of third-country nationals under threat? / Kees Groenendijk
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
