The rule of reason in European citizenship

European Law Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 328-350

  Borgmann Prebil, Yuri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249173537     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00416.x     Document Type: Review

References (168)

1. Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691, at para 63.
2. K. Hailbronner, 'Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits', (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 1245, at 1248
3. with reference to the case note on Sala by Tomuschat (2003) 37 Common Market Law Review 449, at 455
4. Case C-406/04, Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi, judgment of 18 July 2006, at para 40.
5. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
6. See S. Fries and J. Shaw, 'Citizenship of the Union
7. First steps in the European Court of Justice', (1998) 4 European Public Law 533.
8. Case C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193, at para 33.
9. Paragraph 63 of Sala, op cit n 2, supra, has been reiterated in many of the Court's judgments at the outset of the deliberations concerning the applicability of Articles 18 and 12 EC. Eg in Bidar the Court held that '[a]ccording to settled case-law, a citizen of the European union lawfully resident in the territory of the host Member State can rely on Article 12 EC in all situations falling within the scope rationae materia of Community law'. C-209/03, The Queen (on the application of Danny Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] ECR I-2119, judgment of 15 March 2005, at para 32.
10. Case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2 supra, at para 18 of Opinion.
11. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7 supra.
12. ibid, at para 31, emphasis added.
13. J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Polity Press, 1996), at 19.
14. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra.
15. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, judgment of 18 July 2006.
16. ibid, Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed of 2 February 2006.
17. Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen R. A. Tas, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 30 March 2006.
18. Case 40/05, Kai Lyyski v Umeå
19. universitet, Opinion of 14 September 2006, at para 46.
20. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra, judgment of 15 March 2005.
21. Case 39/86, Lair v Universität Hannover [1988] ECR 3161.
22. Case 197/86, Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland [1988] ECR 3202.
23. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra, at para 42.
24. ibid, at paras 45 and 46.
25. Case C-85/96, Sala ECR I-2691.
26. C. Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms (Oxford University Press, 2004), at 415.
27. Interestingly though, Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 is interpreted by the ECJ in Bidar as confirmation of its finding in Grzelczyk that maintenance assistance for students falls within the scope of Community law. Case-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra, at para 43.
28. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, judgment of 18 July 2006.
29. Ie those of Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK.
30. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, at para 39.
31. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191.
32. Case C-224/02, Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763.
33. The paragraph of Pusa cited reads: 'In that a citizen of the Union must be granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, it would be incompatible with the right of freedom of movement were a citizen, in the Member State of which he is a national, to receive treatment less favourable than he would enjoy if he had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement'. (Case C-224/02, Pusa, op cit n 30, supra, at para 19 which is further referenced to Case C-224/98 D'Hoop, op cit n 29, supra, at para 30).
34. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, at para 40.
35. See also E. Spaventa, 'From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (Non-)Economic Constitution' (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 743.
36. Eg by J. Mather, 'The Court of Justice and the Union Citizen', (2005) 11 European Law Journal 722 and Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra.
37. Introduced by Advocate General Geelhoed in his Opinion in Case C-413/01, Ninni-Orasche [2003] ECR I-13187.
38. The second sentence of Article 17(1) EC establishes that '[e]very person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union'.
39. Eg by C. Lyons, 'Citizenship in the Constitution of the European Union: rhetoric or reality?', in R. Bellamy (ed) Constitutionalism, Democracy and Sovereignty: American and European Perspectives (Avebury, 1996), at 96-110.
40. Mather, op cit n 34, supra, at 725.
41. Most recently Advocate General Stix-Hackle remarked again in Lyyski that the assessment of 'the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of Article 12 EC' must be must be viewed in conjunction with the provisions concerning citizenship of the Union'. Opinion of 14 September 2006, Case 40/05, Kai Lyyski, op cit n 17, supra, at para 45. The Court in its judgment in Lyyski, however, expressly said that it did not see any reason to deal with Arts 12 and 18(1) EC in this case. Judgment of 11 January 2007, at para 34.
42. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop, op cit n 29, supra.
43. Case C-224/02, Pusa, op cit n 30, supra.
44. Case C-224/02, Pusa, op cit n 30, supra, at para 18 of the Opinion, emphasis added. The Court, in contrast, focused in its analysis on finding on a 'difference in treatment', see para 31 of the judgment.
45. ibid, at para 22, emphasis added.
46. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed of 2 February 2006, at para 104.
47. Case C-76/90, Säger [1991] ECR 4221, at para 12.
48. Case C-415/93, Bosman [1995] ECR I-6191, at para 103.
49. The applicability of Article 39 EC to nondiscriminatory was, of course, as the Advocate General also points out, unequivocally confirmed in Case C-190/98, Graf [2000] ECR I-493, at para 18.
50. Case C-406/04, Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed, at para 106.
51. Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra, at 1246; with reference to the Case 207/ 78, Even [1979] ECR 2019, and Case 237/94, O'Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617.
52. with reference to the Case 207/78, Even [1979] ECR 2019, and Case 237/94
53. O'Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617.
54. Case 197/86, Brown [1988] ECR 3205, Case 39/86, Lair v Universität Hannover [1988] ECR 3161.
55. Case 316/85, Lebon [1987] ECR 2811.
56. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra.
57. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra.
58. Case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2, supra.
59. Case C-138/02, Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] ECR I-2703.
60. Case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2, supra, at para 63.
61. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra, at para 33.
62. See Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra
63. Mather, op cit n 34, supra.
64. Hailbronner, op cit, n 3, supra, emphasis added.
65. ibid. The interpretation of Article 18(1) EC as prima facie right and 'optimisation precept' reinforces the significance of the principle of proportionality with regard to the delimitation of the boundaries of Article 18(1) EC. The principle is used to balance the free movement right with countervailing interests as codified in secondary legislation.
66. O. Golynker, 'Jobseeker's right in the EU: Challenges of the changing paradigm of social solidarity', (2005) 30 European Law Review 111.
67. See Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 30 March 2006, at para 28.
68. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra, at para 33.
69. Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra.
70. ibid.
71. Mather, op cit n 34, supra, at 725.
72. Case C-378/97, Procédure pénale contre Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207, at para 80 of the Opinion.
73. Mather, op cit n 34, supra, at 727.
74. Case 413/99, Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, at para 84.
75. Mather, op cit n 4, supra, 727.
76. See eg Mather, ibid.
77. ibid.
78. Comprising both the explicit derogation grounds found in the Treaty, ie Arts 30, 39(3), 46 and 58 EC as well as the mandatory requirements, or imperative reasons, created by the Court.
79. Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra.
80. M. Dougan and E Spaventa, 'Educating Rudy and the Non English Patient: A Double Bill on the Residency Rights Under Article 18 EC', (2003) 28 European Law Review 699.
81. See also M. Dougan, 'Fees, Grants, Loans and Dole Cheques: Who Covers the Costs of Migrant Education Within the EU?' (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 943.
82. Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra.
83. Case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2, supra, at paras 28 and 57.
84. Case 249/83, Hoeckx [1985] ECR 973.
85. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra, at para 27.
86. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop, op cit n 29, supra, at para 17 where the Court held that the tideover allowance in question fell within the scope of Art 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
87. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra, at paras 34-36
88. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra, at paras 38-43.
89. Case C-138/02, Collins, op cit n 54, supra, at para 62.
90. Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 30March 2006, at paras 33 and 34.
91. ibid, at para 36. This was established early on by the ECJ in Case 2/74, Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631, at para 26 with regard to the direct effect of freedom of establishment in the absence of harmonising legislation.
92. It will be recalled that para 8 of that judgment opened with the words: 'In the absence of common rules...'. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR649.
93. Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 30March 2006, at para 36.
94. Case 413/99, Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091.
95. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop, op cit n 29, supra.
96. Case C-224/02, Pusa, op cit n 30, supra.
97. Case C-209/03, Bidar, op cit n 8, supra.
98. Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 30March 2006, at para 37.
99. Articles 3 and 4 of Directives 93/96 and 90/364 and 365 respectively, see above.
100. Hailbronner, op cit n 3, supra.
101. It appears that the Advocate General implicitly rebuted here the related argument that the scope of Art 18(1) EC is only triggered if the subject matter is covered by other provisions of EC law. See above.
102. Such as the exercise of public authority in Arts 39(4) and 45 EC.
103. Author's own translation of the term 'Beschränkungsvorbehalt' in the German text.
104. Case C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, Opinion of 30 March 2006, at para 39. Perhaps the Advocate General should have added a reference to Art 86(2) EC here as well.
105. Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, at paras 31 and 32.
106. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, judgment of 18 July 2006, at para 36.
107. ibid.
108. ibid, at para 40.
109. R. Alexy, Theorie der Grundrechte (Suhrkamp, 3rd edn, 1996).
110. ibid, at 77-79.
111. R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth, 1977), at 14 and 24-26.
112. According to Dworkin a policy sets out an economic, political, or social objective intended to advance the public good, ibid, at 24.
113. S. Guest, Ronald Dworkin. Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory (Edinburgh University Press, 2nd edn, 1997), at 50.
114. This becomes evident in the very fact that according to Dworkin the term 'right' is reserved for those individual interests that prevail over the public good
115. hence Dworkin's conception of rights as trumps. Dworkin, op cit n 103, supra, at 194.
116. Alexy, op cit n 101, supra, at 75.
117. ibid, at 87.
118. This correlation is expressed in the theory of reciprocal effect (Wechselwirkungstheorie), which informs the rights discourse.
119. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral, op cit n 5, supra.
120. Paragraph 8 sets out the rule of reason.
121. Paragraph 14 sets out the principle of mutual recognition.
122. This is precisely the conundrum identified by Dougan and Spaventa, op cit n 74, supra.
123. S. O'Leary, 'Putting flesh on the bones of citizenship' (1999) 24 European Law Review 68, at 70, emphasis added.
124. Case C-413/99, Baumbast, op cit n 68, supra, at para 90, emphasis added.
125. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, op cit n 7, supra, at paras 42-44.
126. Perhaps save the recitals, especially the frequently invoked Recital Six which prescribes that migrant citizens shall not become an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host state.
127. G. Davies, '"Any Place I HangMy Hat?" or: Residence is the New Nationality', (2005) 11 European Law Journal 43.
128. The second sentence of which reads: '... and expulsion measure should not be the automatic consequence of recourse to the social assistance system'.
129. Article 16 of the Directive.
130. See Art 7 of the Directive.
131. Emphasis added.
132. As defined in Chapter IV (Arts 16-21) of the Directive. The status of permanent residence is normally acquired after five years of residence (Art 16(1)).
133. Emphasis added.
134. Article 28(3)a.
135. Article 28(3)b.
136. Article 28(3) emphasis added. It should be noted, though, that the provision envisages that it is for the Member States to define what constitutes imperative grounds of public security.
137. As per case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2, supra, at para 63.
138. As referred to in the text, the distinction between residence for up to three months in Art 6, for more than three months in Art 7, and permanent residence in Art 16 all draw on specified periods of residence as a criterion, and implicitly perhaps legitimation, for the range and limitations of the rights conferred.
139. In Art 28 as mentioned above.
140. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop, op cit n 29, supra, at para 38.
141. Case C-138/02, Collins, op cit n 54, supra, at paras 67-69.
142. G. Delanty, 'Models of Citizenship: Defining European Identity and Citizenship', (1997) 1 Citizenship Studies 285.
143. Case C-192/05, Tas-Hagen, op cit n 16, supra, judgment of 26 October 2006, at para 39, emphasis added.
144. Case C-413/01, Ninni-Orasche, op cit n 35, supra, at para 90 of the Opinion.
145. Case C-85/96, Sala, op cit n 2, supra.
146. Case C-186/87, Cowan v Tresor Public [1989] ECR 195.
147. ibid, at para 16, emphasis added.
148. Davies, op cit n 118, supra.
149. Case C-413/01, Ninni-Orasche, op cit n 35, supra.
150. Case C-138/02, Collins, op cit n 54, supra.
151. Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95, Stöber and Pereira [1997] ECR I-511, at para 50 of the Opinion.
152. Barnard, op cit n 24, supra, at 416.
153. Directive 93/96 (students)
154. Directive 90/365 (pensioners)
155. Directive 90/364 (people of independent means).
156. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, Opinion of Advocate General Geelnhoed of 2 February 2006, at paras 112 and 113.
157. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, judgment of 18 July 2006, at paras 36/37.
158. ibid, at para 40.
159. Case C-55/94, Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, at para 37.
160. Case C-406/04, De Cuyper, op cit n 4, supra, judgment of 18 July 2006, at para 43.
161. ibid, at paras 44-47.
162. 'A measure is proportionate when, while appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it', at para 42 of judgment.
163. ibid, at paras 47 and 48.
164. C. Barnard, Case note on Case C-209/03 Bidar, (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 1465, at 1472.
165. Barnard, op cit n 24, supra, at 81.
166. D. Chalmers, C. Hadjiemmanuil, G. Monti and A. Tomkins, European Union Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), at 600.
167. Barnard, op cit n 153, supra, at 1482.
168. E. Szyszczak and A. Cygan, Understanding EU Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2005), at 91.