Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:20:42.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Union Citizenship and the Redefinition of the “Internal Situations” Rule: The Implications of Zambrano

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Anja Wiesbrock

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On 8 March 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice issued a significant ruling regarding the interpretation and scope of the concept of European Union citizenship. In an eagerly anticipated judgment, the Court held that Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) confers a right of residence and a right to obtain a work permit upon the parents of a minor dependent European Union citizen who has never left the Member State of his or her nationality. The ruling is notable for having redefined the “internal situation” rule and extended the reach of the primary law provisions on Union citizenship beyond Directive 2004/38/EC. Yet, some of the potential implications of Zambrano have been qualified by the Court's subsequent rulings in McCarthy and Dereci. In those cases, the Court restricted the scope for EU citizens who have never exercised their free movement rights to rely on EU law in order to derive rights of residence for their third-country-national family members in their country of nationality. Moreover, the brevity of the Zambrano judgment indicates substantial disagreement amongst the judges and has the effect of leaving a number of issues unclear. What are the precise limitations to relying on Article 20 TFEU in a situation that falls outside the scope of Article 2004/38/EC? How does the ruling impact the ongoing discussions on reverse discrimination and the protection of fundamental rights in the E.U.? After briefly describing the factual and legal background of the case, the opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, and the Court's judgment, we will discuss the questions raised above before considering the potential implications of the ruling for Member States' migration and nationality laws.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 11: Special section - The Hartz IV Case and the German Sozialstaat , 01 November 2011 , pp. 2077 - 2094
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (8 Mar. 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009J0034:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

2 Case C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't (5 May 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0434:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

3 Case C-256/11, Murat Dereci, Vishaka Heiml, Alban Kokollari, Izunna Emmanuel Maduike, Dragica Stevic v. Bundesministerium für Inneres (15 Nov. 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0256:EN:HTML (last visited 16 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

4 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 18, 5 Sept. 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

5 TFEU art. 20. The rights listed in Article 20 TFEU are non-exhaustive and also include the right to vote and stand as a candidate in local and European Parliament elections, the right to enjoy the diplomatic protection of any member state in a third country in which one's member state of nationality is not represented, and the right to petition the European Parliament and the Ombudsman.Google Scholar

6 TFEU art. 21.Google Scholar

7 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 Apr. 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77; 2004 O.J. (L 229) 35 (EU corrigendum); 2005 O.J. (L 197) 34 (EU corrigendum).Google Scholar

8 Council Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 6, at 88.Google Scholar

9 Advocate General Kokott openly opposes Sharpston's reasoning, see Case C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't (5 May 2011), Op. of Advocate Gen. Kokott, para. 31 (25 Nov. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009C0434:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011), whereas Advocate General Trstenjak avoids taking a position on the issue, see Case C-325/09, Sec'y of State v. Dias, Op. of Advocate Gen. Trstenjak, para. 72 (17 Feb. 2011) [hereinafter Trstenjak opinion], available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009C0325:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

10 See, e.g., Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001 E.C.R. I-6193, para. 31; Case C-224/98, D'Hoop v. Office national de l'emploi, 2002 E.C.R. I-6191, para. 28; Case C-413/99, Baumbast v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091, para. 82; Joined Cases C-482/01 & C-493/01, Orfanopoulos v. Land Baden-Württemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I-5257, para. 65; Case C-224/02, Pusa v. Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö, 2004 E.C.R. I-5763, para. 16; Case C-209/03, Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing, 2005 E.C.R. I-2119, para. 31; Case C-403/03, Schempp v. Finanzamt München V, 2005 E.C.R. I-6421, para. 15; Case C-524/06, Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2008 E.C.R. I-9705, para. 69.Google Scholar

11 Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141.Google Scholar

12 Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-6279.Google Scholar

13 Case C-127/08, Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equal., & Law Reform, 2008 E.C.R. I-6241.Google Scholar

14 Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (8 Mar. 2011), Op. of Advocate Gen. Sharpston, para. 73 (30 Sept. 2010) [hereinafter Sharpston Opinion], available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009C0034:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

15 Case C-148/02, Avello v. Belgian State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613.Google Scholar

16 Case C-200/02, Zhu & Chen v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925.Google Scholar

17 Case C-135/08, Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern (2 Mar. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0135:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

18 Sharpston Opinion, supra note 13, at para. 77.Google Scholar

19 Id. Google Scholar

20 Id. at paras. 84–86.Google Scholar

21 Id. at para. 100.Google Scholar

22 Id. at paras. 94–95 (referring to Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern (2 Mar. 2010), at paras. 38–42).Google Scholar

23 Sharpston Opinion, supra note 13, at paras. 146–48.Google Scholar

24 Id. at para. 163.Google Scholar

25 Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (8 Mar. 2011), at para. 42.Google Scholar

26 Id. at para. 43. Google Scholar

27 Id. at para. 45.Google Scholar

28 Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001 E.C.R. I-6193, at para. 31. Although the wording of “fundamental status” was mentioned for the first time in Grzelcyzk, the Court had already started its approach of extensively interpreting the Treaty provisions on Union citizenship in 1998 with the famous Case C-85/96, Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, 1998 E.C.R. I-2691. The case has been discussed widely, see, for example, Christian Tomuschat, Case Note, Case C-85/96, Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, 1998 ECR I-2691, 37 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 449 (2000).Google Scholar

29 See generally Case C-413/99, Baumbast v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091; Case C-148/02, Avello v. Belgian State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613; Case C-138/02, Collins v. Sec'y of State for Work & Pensions, 2004 E.C.R. I-2703; Case C-456/02, Trojani v. Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles, 2004 E.C.R. I-7573; Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing, 2005 E.C.R. I-2119; Schempp v. Finanzamt München V, 2005 E.C.R. I-6421; Case C-406/04, De Cuyper v. Office national de l'emploi, 2006 E.C.R. I-6947; Case C-192/05, Tas-Hagen v. Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen, 2006 E.C.R. I-10451; Joined Cases C-11/06, Morgan v. Bezirksregierung Köln & C-12/06, Bucher v. Landrat des Kreises Düren, 2007 E.C.R. 9161; Case C-127/08, Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equal., & Law Reform, 2008 E.C.R. I-6241; Case C-310/08, London Borough of Harrow v. Ibrahim (23 Feb. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0310:EN:HTML (last visited 11 Nov. 2011); Case C-480/08, Teixeira v. London Borough of Lambeth (23 Feb. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0480:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011); Case C-162/09, Sec'y of State for Work & Pensions v. Lassal (7 Oct. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009J0162:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011); Case C-145/09, Land Baden-Württemberg v. Tsakouridis (23 Nov. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009J0145:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

30 See, e.g., Bauböck, Rainer, Why European Citizenship? Normative Approaches to Supranational Union, 8 Theoretical Inquiries L. 453 (2007); Carrera, Sergio, What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?, 11 Eur. L.J. 669 (2005); Jacobs, Francis G., Citizenship of the European Union—A Legal Analysis, 13 Eur. L.J. 591 (2007); Kostakopoulou, Dora, Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change, 68 Mod. L. Rev. 233 (2005).Google Scholar

31 Commentary, Editorial, Two-Speed European Citizenship? Can the Lisbon Treaty Help Close the Gap?, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1 (2008); see also Ferdinand Wollenschläger, A New Fundamental Freedom Beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and Its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration, 17 Eur. L.J. 1 (2010).Google Scholar

32 Herlin-Karnell, Ester, European Arrest Warrant Cases and the Principles of Non-Discrimination and EU Citizenship, 73 Mod. L. Rev. 824 (2010).Google Scholar

33 See, e.g., Joined Cases 35 & 36/82, Morson & Jhanjan v. State of the Netherlands, 1982 E.C.R. 3723, para. 16; Case C-153/91, Petit v. Office national des pensions, 1992 E.C.R. I-4973, para. 8; Joined Cases C-64/96 & C-65/96, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Uecker & Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein- Westfalen, 1997 E.C.R. I-3171, para. 16; Joined Cases C-95/99–C-98/99 & C-180/99, Khalil v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit & Nasser v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart & Addou v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2001 E.C.R. I-7413, para. 69.Google Scholar

34 Case 175/78, Regina v. Saunders, 1979 E.C.R. 1129.Google Scholar

35 Case C-41/90, Höfner v. Macrotron GmbH, 1991 E.C.R. I-1979.Google Scholar

36 Case 20/87, Ministère public v. Gauchard, 1987 E.C.R. 4879.Google Scholar

37 Case C-148/02, Avello v. Belgian State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613.Google Scholar

38 Case C-200/02, Zhu & Chen v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925.Google Scholar

39 Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern (2 Mar. 2010).Google Scholar

40 Council Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 6; see, e.g., Samantha Besson & André Utzinger, Introduction: Future Challenges of European Citizenship—Facing a Wide-Open Pandora's Box, 13 Eur. L.J. 573 (2007); Bierbach, Jeremy, European Citizens’ Third-Country Family Members and Community Law, 4 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 344 (2008); Carrera, Sergio, What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?, 11 Eur. L.J. 699 (2005); McGlynn, Clare, Family Reunion and the Free Movement of Persons in European Union Law, 7 Int'l L. FORUM du droit international 159 (2005).Google Scholar

41 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 Sep. 2003 on the Right to Family Reunification, 2003 O.J. (L 251) 12. See, e.g., Sergio Carrera & Anja Wiesbrock, Whose European Citizenship in the Stockholm Programme? The Enactment of Citizenship by Third Country Nationals in the EU, 12 Eur. J. Migration & L. 337 (2010); Groenendijk, Kees, Family Reunification as a Right Under Community Law, 8 Eur. J. Migration & L. 215 (2006).Google Scholar

42 Case C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't (5 May 2011), at para. 49.Google Scholar

43 See also Wiesbrock, Anja, Disentangling the “Union Citizenship Puzzle”: The McCarthy Case, 36 Eur. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2011).Google Scholar

44 Case C-256/11, Murat Dereci, Vishaka Heiml, Alban Kokollari, Izunna Emmanuel Maduike, Dragica Stevic v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, para. 66 (15 Nov. 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0256:EN:HTML (last visited 16 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

45 Case C-406/04, De Cuyper v. Office national de l'emploi, 2006 E.C.R. I-6947, at para. 40; Case C-76/05, Schwarz v. Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach, 2007 E.C.R. I-6849, para. 94; Case C-353/06, Grunkin & Paul, 2008 E.C.R. I-7639, para. 29; Case C-544/07, Rüffler v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej, 2009 E.C.R. I-3389, para. 74; Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, para. 81 (22 Dec. 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0208:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

46 Council Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 6, art. 7.1(b).Google Scholar

47 Id. art. 7.2.Google Scholar

48 Case C-456/02, Trojani v. Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles, 2004 E.C.R. I-7573.Google Scholar

49 Case C-200/02, Zhu & Chen v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2004 E.C.R. I-9925, at paras. 26–28.Google Scholar

50 Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (8 Mar. 2011), at para. 44.Google Scholar

51 Council Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 6, art. 23.Google Scholar

52 For example, the right of residence of the parent who is the “primary carer” for a Union-citizen child. Compare Council Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 6, art. 12, with Case C-413/99, Baumbast v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-7091, at para. 75.Google Scholar

53 Case C-325/09, Sec'y of State for Work & Pensions v. Dias (21 July 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0325:EN:HTML (last visited 9 Nov. 2011); see also Case C-162/09, Sec'y of State for Work & Pensions v. Lassal (7 Oct. 2010).Google Scholar

54 See Trstenjak Opinion, supra note 8, at paras. 47–48.Google Scholar

55 See, e.g., Case 86/78, Peureux v. directeur des Services fiscaux de la Haute Saône, 1979 E.C.R. 897, para. 38; Case 355/85, Driancourt v. Cognet, 1986 E.C.R. 3231, paras. 10–11; Case 98/86, Criminal Proceedings Against Mathot, 1987 E.C.R. 809, para. 7; see also Alina Tyrfonidou, Reverse Discrimination in EC Law (2009).Google Scholar

56 Anne Pieter van der Mei, Stefaan Van den Bogaert and Gerard-René de Groot, De arresten Ruiz Zambrano en McCarthy. Het Hof van Justitie en het effectieve genot van EU-burgerschapsrechten, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, nr. 6 (2011), at 188–99.Google Scholar

57 See also Lansbergen, Anja & Miller, Nina, European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? Decision of 8 March 2011, Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi (ONEM), 7 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 287 (2011).Google Scholar

58 See also Wiesbrock, supra note 46.Google Scholar

59 Case 36/75, Rutili v. Ministre de l'intérieur, 1975 E.C.R. 1219, para. 26; Case 222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 1986 E.C.R. 1651, paras. 17–19; Case 222/86, UNECTEF v. Heylens, 1987 E.C.R. 4097, paras. 14–15.Google Scholar

60 Joined Cases 201 & 202/85, Klensch v. Secrétaire d'État à la Viticulture, 1986 E.C.R. 3477, paras. 10–11; Case 5/88, Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, 1989 E.C.R. 2609, para. 22; Case C-2/92, Regina v. Ministry of Agric., Fisheries & Food, ex parte Bostock, 1994 E.C.R. I-955, para. 16; Joined Cases C-20/00 & C-64/00, Booker Aquaculture & Hydro Seafood v. The Scottish Ministers, 2003 E.C.R. I-7411, para. 68.Google Scholar

61 Sharpston Opinion, supra note 13, at para. 163.Google Scholar

62 Case C-256/11, Murat Dereci, Vishaka Heiml, Alban Kokollari, Izunna Emmanuel Maduike, Dragica Stevic v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, para. 68 (15 Nov. 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0256:EN:HTML (last visited 16 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

63 The Court has, however, restricted national discretion in this area in respect of nationality rules applicable to Union citizens. See Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern (2 Mar. 2010).Google Scholar

64 Belgian Nationality Code, art. 10(1), Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], 12 July 1984, 10095 (in the version applicable at the time of the birth of the Zambrano children).Google Scholar

65 European Migration Network, Ad-Hoc Query on the Consequences of the Zambrano Case (C-34/09) (2011), http://www.emnbelgium.be/sites/default/files/publications/312_emn_ad-hoc_query_zambrano_case_14april2011_wider_dissemination.pdf (last visited 6 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

66 Recommendation CM/Rec (2009) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Nationality of Children (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 Dec. 2009 at the 1073rd Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) (Council of Europe), available at https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1563529 (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

67 Anne Pieter van der Mei, Stefaan Van den Bogaert & Gerard-René de Groot, De arresten Ruiz Zambrano en McCarthy: Het Hof van Justitie en het effectieve genot van EU-burgerschapsrechten, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, June 2011, at 188–99.Google Scholar