CITIZENSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION(=citoyenneté)

Introduction
CEU = you can also say « citizenship of the Union », « Union citizenship »,« EU citizenship ». In treaties, it’s
«Union» that is use(9 TEU/20 TFEU). «European Citizenship» isn’t correct because it could be something
# : it can be any citizenship of European country and a country that is not member of European Union. For
instance : citizens of Norway (= Norvège) are European Citizens. European Citizenship is larger tant Union
Citizenship.

The interest of this course : CEU it’s a specific citizenship. The CEU is very specific. Also, is possible to
talk about national law or the link between # kind of law, study # dimension of tu EU law, # issue : Covid,
Human Right… Also, there is the fact that it’s concern your right. We are citizens of EU. In July 2019 there
is two hundred millions (= 200 millions) CEU. Numbers of citizens of EU is not the number of
population of EU. The population of EU not include only people of members states(MS). Population
is larger.The numbers of citizens of the EU is not the numbers of residents of EU. For instance:
Citizens of EU living in other states in world, not in the territory of EU. Also, some residents are not
citizens. Citizens of EU are not citizens of a country who is a MS. And, some citizens of a country
who is a MS are not citizens of EU. They don’t have the right to vote. For instance: children. Even if your
not yet 18 in Fr, you are citizen of the EU. It’s because the CEU, is not link to the citizenship of the MS.
The critarium is to be a national. The condition is the nationality.

CEU is specific compare of national citizenship (=comparaison spécifique de la citoyenneté nationale).

Citizens of E.U have the right to vote, freely move, present a petition to the Parlement. According to the
CJUE «Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the member
states enabling who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law in respective
of their nationality » (= La citoyenneté de l'Union est destinée à ê le statut fonda des ressortissants des EM
permettant à ceux qui se trouvent dans la même situation de bénéficier du même traitement en D quelle
que soit leur nationalité). Rights of E.U are specific/additional rights. Is ECJ, 20 September 2001, Rudy
Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Case C-184/99, pt 31: “Union
citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the MS enabling those who find
themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality,
subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for »( = sous réserve des exceptions expressément
prévues). Linked to the equality / non-discrimination between EU citizens on grounds of nationality = a
concept specific to the EU (=Lié à l'égalité / non-discrimination entre les citoyens de l'UE en raison de la
nationalité = un concept propre à l’UE)

Chapitre I - History of the citizenship of the European Union (EU)

The Q is : why a CEU and how/when did it appear? It took time. What the citizenship is ? Is « the state of
being a member of a particular country and having rights because of it » (Cambridge English dictionary).
«  Citizenship can be defined as the status of having the right to participate in and to be represented in
politics » (= le D de participer et d’ê représenté en politique) (UNESCO).

There are legal aspects in these definitions and also political aspects. Citizenship is the «status » so there
legal implication. In this 2 def there is in this first the idea that citizenship give rights. The 2nd is the
idea that citizenship give political right to the beneficiaries.

Usually the citizenship is link to a country/state, the concept of national state. The EU is not a state.
So, why do we have a CEU? The EU is, legally speaking, a specific international organization. It’s a
integration/corporation organization. So the CEU should not exist. The CEU is a political instrument
because is a way to prove 2 things. First, it’s to show that The EU is not a classical international
organization but an international organization with specialities because of the method of
integration. It’s closer to a state but is not a state. It’s to make peoples of Europe closer. In the
preamble of TEC “DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe” (between the process of European construction and citizenship). It’s still in the preamble of the
TEU. Art 1 TEU « This treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the
peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the
citizen » (= Ce T marque une nouvelle étape dans le processus de création d'une union toujours +
étroite entre les peuples d'Europe, dans laquelle les décisions sont prises aussi ouvertement que
possible et au + près du citoyen). It explicit the link between integration and CEU. In 2013, Viviane
Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental
Rights and Citizenship say that «  we cannot build the Union without people. Union citizenship is the
cornerstone to make the EU a real organization of integration ».

It doesn’t mean the E.U is the only international organization. For instance: MERCOSUR recognize a
specific citizenship. There is the objectif of being a supranational organization. For instance : ECOWAS
(Economic COmmunity of West African States).

The 2nd reason is that union citizenship development also express that this organization is a evoluary
organization(=organisation évolutive). Is a way to insiste on the political dimension of the EU. It’s a
way to prove that EU is no more juste an economic organisation but also a political organization.
The objective of creation/development of CEU it’s a way to legitimate the European construction, its
evolution towards a general organization of built on integration. Being a citizen is being a member of
something. People of the EU have to feel that they are in EU. The idea is that if you have right, you will feel
that you belong to (=appartenir à) the EU. Cf V. Reding, 2013: “It [the citizenship of the EU] should be to
Political Union what the euro is to Economic and Monetary Union” (= Elle [la citoyenneté de l’UE] devrait
ê à l’Union politique ce que l’euro est à l’Union économique et monétaire). The concept of CEU
added a new political dimension to the primarily economic nature of European integration.(=nouvelle
dimension politique du caractère essentiellement économique de l'intégration européenne). It’s
fundamentally a political concept.

CEU has objectives. First, to develop a common sens of belonging with a new politician entity, to find an
identity. (=dév un sentiment commun d'appartenance à une nouvelle entité politique, trouver une identité).
But, Jacques Delors say « You can’t fall in love with the single market ». Also, Raymond Aron say « The
European idea is without substance. (…) It is not comprehensible , not tangible compared to the traditional
embodied fatherland. Europe is a creation by intellectuals that appeals to reason but hardly has an echo in
the hearts  » (= L'idée européenne est sans substance. (…) Ce n'est ni compréhensible, ni tangible par
rapport à la patrie incarnée traditionnelle. L'Europe est une création d'intellectuels qui fait appel à la raison
mais qui n'a guère d'écho dans les cœurs). Catherine Barnard, Citizenship « provide[s] the glue to help
bind together nationals of all the MS» (= fournit [s] le ciment nécessaire pour aider à rapprocher les
ressortissants de tous les EM).

Section I. The progressive development of the concept of citizenship of the EU

It’s possible to identify 4 steps/period of the CEU.

PS.Founding treaty # amending treaty. Founding treaties = treaties that created international organizations.
For instance: the ECC (Communauté économique européenne) and EAEC (Communauté européenne de
l'énergie atomique) = 2 founding treaties. The Rome T and Maastrisht T are founding treaty but their real
name are TEU. Amending treaties not create a new organization/structure but sending provision of the
existing (founding) treaties. For instance: Lisbonne T/ Nice T/ Amsterdam T/ The European Single Act
(Acte unique Européen)/Maastricht T. The Maastricht T is both. He create a new organization : EU. But
it’s also an amending treaty. He amending the European Community Treaty.

4 periods

> 1. The silence (?) of the founding treaties of the ECs

> 2. The emergence of a “Citizens’ Europe” (1970’-1980’)

> 3. The enshrinement (= la consécration) of the “Citizenship of the EU” by the Maastricht Treaty (1992)

> 4. The cautious (=prudentes) evolutions by successive amending treaties

I - The (ambiguous) silence of the founding treaties of the ECC (p.18/49)

The concept of citizenship can not be found in the founding treaties of the EC. There is 2 interpretations/
thesis concerning this silence. For J.F Akandji-Kombé, there is the thesis of «consubstantiality» (=
consubstantialité) and the thesis of «accidental creation».

A/The thesis of consubstantiality

According to this thesis the CEU is at the heart of the Community construction (=construction
communautaire) from the beginning (the founding treaties) and that is consubstantial. Interpretation is
based on the primary law and the case law of the ECJ (« founding » case). In the founding cases of the
ECJ we can find element concerning citizens. The idea is to creating a body of law, a link between citizen
and the European community law (= D communautaire européen). This is link to the specific nature of the
EC (=Ceci est lié à la nature spécifique de la communautaire européenne), a characteristic of integration.
The citizenship is consubstantial to this nature.Citizenship is at the heart of the project from the beginning.

There is clues (=indices). The provisions that grant rights to the nationals of country MS, the principles of
this specific legal order creating a direct link between the norms and the individuals like the direct effect of
many provisions. There is the interpretation based on the caselaw of ECJ, on « founding cases ».

There is 2 cases who give the primacy effect (=l’effet de primauté) and the primacy of EU law. First, there
is Van Gend en Loos, 1963 : « The Community has its own institutions, independent of the Member
States, endowed with the power to take administrative measures and to make rules of law which
directly create rights in favour of and impose duties on Member States as well as their authorities and
citizens. » (= La Communauté dispose de ses propres institutions, indépendantes des EM, dotées du pv
de prendre des mesures admi et d’édicter des R de D qui créent directement des D en faveur des EM ainsi
qu’à leurs autorités et citoyens et leur imposent des devoirs). And, there is Costa c/ ENEL, 15 juill 1964 :
« By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own
legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers
stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the
MS have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law
which binds both their nationals and themselves. » (= En créant une Communauté à durée illimitée,
ayant ses propres institutions, sa propre personnalité, sa propre capacité juridique et sa capacité de
représentation sur le plan interN et, + particulièrement, des pv réels découlant d'une limitation de
souveraineté ou d'un transfert de compétences des États à la Communauté, les EM ont limité leurs
D souverains, bien que dans des domaines limités, et ont ainsi créé un corpus juridique qui lie à la fois
leurs ressortissants et eux-mêmes.).

In consequences, individuals are holders (=titulaires) of subjective and justiciable rights creates by the law.
And, the citizenship is consubstantial to the supranational nature of the ECs.

B/The thesis of accidental creation

The notion of a European Citizen was not (at all) in the minds of those who drafted(=rédigé) the founding
Treaty Establishing The European Economic Community in 1950’s (= T de Rome, 1957, T de Paris,
1951). If something like citizenship was present it’s not with a political meaning(=ça n’a pas d signification
politique). In the founding treaties, the individuals are describe, conceive are being «  market citizens  »:
holders of economic freedom (=worker or provider (= fournisseur) of goods and services ). It’s an
economic approach. The notion of a European Citizenship was even not in the minds of those who drafted
the founding Treaty on the EU in the early 1990s. It’s appeared in TEU in 1992 by « accident » , at the
behest (= à la demande) of one of the Head of States or Governments, a chapter therefore written in
hurry(= à la hâte). The fact that citizenship is mentioned in Maastricht T is an accident, this is the csq of
the negotiation. It’s because the representative of Spain(the PM of Spain) say it was not a political element
in the Maastricht T.

II - The emergence of a « Citizens Europe » (1970- 1980) = Europe des citoyens

There is a progressive conceptualisation based on several (=nombreuses) initiatives. There is # steps. The
first step is in dec 1974 Paris Summit (=sommet). the Heads of States or Governments mention the idea
to create some civil and political rights called « special rights », that could be granted (=accordés) to
nationals of MS, to bring them closer to the Community and its institutions.

The 2nd step is in 1975 : Report from the Commission «  Vers l’Europe des citoyens  » who
recommends the abolition of controls at internal borders. It’s more link to economic right but it still a
right for individuals, not only for workers. And, commission recommends the recognition of the right to
vote and to stand as a candidate, identical on the whole territory of the country for MS nationals. It’s
something more like a political right.

The third step in dec 1975 with the Tindemans report entitled « European Union ». The concept of EU
is pose. It proposes two actions. First, to develop external signs of solidarity between Europeans. And, to
ensure the protection of rights of the Europeans. Léo Tindemans, PM of Belgium (nicknamed « Mr
Europe » because of the record of vote to the first direct elections to the EP, still unbeaten) is sometimes
considered as the father of the European citizenship. In his report, a chapter entitled «  A Citizens’
Europe ». The objective is that « Europe must be close to its citizens ». He says « The construction of
Europe is not just a form of collaboration between States. It is a rapprochement of peoples who wish to
go forward (= aller de l’avant) together, adapting their activity to the changing conditions in the world
while preserving those values which are their common heritage. In democratic countries the will of
governments alone is not sufficient for such an undertaking (= une E). The need for it, its advantages
and its gradual achievement must be perceived by everyone so that effort and sacrifices are freely
accepted. Europe must be close to its citizens.[...] Measures taken in connection with the social policy
of the Union, as regards security, concertation and participation will be directly felt in the daily lives of
Europeans. They will emphasize the human dimension of the undertaking. […]  ». (= La construction
européenne n'est pas seulement une forme de collaboration entre États. C’est un rapprochement de
peuples qui souhaitent aller de l’avant ensemble, en adaptant leur activité aux conditions changeantes du
monde tout en préservant ces valeurs qui sont leur patrimoine commun. Dans les pays démocratiques, la
seule volonté des gouvernements ne suffit pas pour une telle entreprise (= une E). La nécessité, ses
avantages et sa réalisation progressive doivent ê perçus par tous pour que l'effort et les sacrifices soient
librement acceptés. L'Europe doit ê proche de ses citoyens. [...] Les mesures prises dans le cadre de la
politique sociale de l'Union, en matière de sécurité, de concertation et de participation, se feront sentir
directement dans la vie quotidienne des Européens. Ils mettront l'accent sur la dimension humaine de
l’entreprise).

To develop external signs (=signes extérieures) of solidarity betweens Europeans, there is # things. First,
« uniformity of passports and later to a passport union. And, « greater integration in educational matters by
promoting student exchange » (= uniformité des passeports et + tard à une union des passeports). Et «une
plus grande intégration en matière éducative en favorisant les échanges d'étudiants». Then, « to promote
collaboration between information media, in particular radio and television, to encourage the spread (= la
propagation, diffusion) of information and better knowledge of each other » (=promouvoir la collaboration
entre les médias d'information, en particulier la radio et la télévision, pour favoriser la diffusion de
l'information et une meilleure connaissance mutuelle). Passport of EU not exist. We do not have a EU
passport, it specific to each state. There is no European passport but a common format and common
elements. Since 1981, there are common elements on passports. First, the words « EC » are written on it.
Then, you have the coverage of the passport who is the same fort state of EU. There is one exception for
Bulgaria. All the passports are red/pink. The emblem of promoting student exchange is ERASMUS : in
1994 since 1973, hundred thousand (100 000) students use the ERASMUS program. To ensure the
protection of rights of the Europeans, it’s via fundamental rights, consumer rights (= D du consommateur)
and protection of the environment.

Pecularity (= particularité), The report focuses on the link with the “everyday life” (= vie courante,
quotidienne) to give Europe a social and human dimension BUT no political rights! Reception is not much
enthusiasm in the Member States’ governments = background of severe economic recession and no
immediate action was taken on the Report. BUT, the the 3 signs of solidarity have been developed(more
ore less).

The fourth step was in sept 1976: Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European
Parliament by direct universal suffrage (OJ n°L278, 08/10/1976). (Loi concernant l'élection des
représentants du Parlement européen au suffrage universel direct)

The fifth step is in nov 1977 with the Nov. 1977, resolution of the EP on the granting (=l’octroi de) of
special rights to be citizens of the European Community (OJ n°C299, 12/12/1977, p.26) who requests
the Commission to draw up proposals relating to special rights. These rights are protection for civil and
political rights equivalent to that provided for economic rights, rights proposer in the Tindemans report,
right for individuals to appeal to the CJCE, right to submit petitions, right to stand for and to use their
mother tongue(=langue maternelle) etc. In 1984 there is the Project for a treaty on the Euroepan Union that
was written by the European Parliament itself : it’s the Spinelli Project. It’s an important initiative. It’s a
new legitimacy. This project include 1977 resolutions. For the first time we found the idea that it should be
creating a citizenship. But this project didn’t link to a new treaty.

There is an other step in February 1984 with the Spinelli project (EP project of treaty on the European
Union) who say « The citizens of the Member States shall ipso facto be citizens of the Union. Citizenship
of the Union shall be dependent upon citizenship of a Member State; it may not be independently
acquired or forfeited. Citizens of the Union shall take part in the political life of the Union in the forms
laid down by this Treaty, enjoy the rights granted to them by the legal system of the Union and be subject
to its laws » (= Les citoyens des EM sont ipso facto citoyens de l'Union. La citoyenneté de l'Union dépend
de la citoyenneté d’un EM; il ne peut pas ê acquis ou confisqué indépendamment. Les citoyens de l'Union
participent à la vie politique de l'Union sous les formes fixées par le présent traité, jouissent des D qui leur
sont accordés par l'ordre juridique de l'Union et sont soumis à ses législations).

Then, in 1985 there is 2 reports from the Ad hoc Committee to strengthen(=renforcer) the identity of the
Community and favour the advent of (=l’avènement de) a common European area without borders. The
first one suggested in particular to facilitate the free movement of persons; the mutual recognition of
diplomas; the creation of a European vocational training certificate (=Certificat européen de formation pro).
The 2nd(more focus on political aspect) suggested in particular 2 series of proposals. Firstly, use of
European symbols: a European anthem/ flag; Postal stamps with European common designs, abolition of
the customs signs at borders between member state. Also, « special rights for citizens »: a uniform
procedure for the election to the EP, a right to submit petitions, a right to vote and stand as candidate for
local elections in the MS of residence.

Finally, in the Single European Act (SEA)(1986-1988), there is no reference to citizenship of citizens, only
economic and achievement of the common market. But, there is two next steps in 1988. Firstly, in June
1988 there is a Commission Communication named « a people’s Europe »(= L’Europe des citoyens).
It’s not a proposal or act. The Commission mentions various symbols as the European flag, the anthem,
the uniform passport, actions in favor of women or youth, as well as the abolition of controls at internal
borders and right to vote for local elections... It’s to make Citizenship of Europe concret. Moreover, the 11
July 1988, there is a Commission Proposal for a Council directive on voting rights for community
nationals in local elections in their MS of residence.

Ultimately, in 1989, the ECJ confirmed this conception, use this concept of people’s Europe with ECJ, 30
may 1989, Commission v. Council, Erasmus case. It evoked « the general objectives of the Community,
such as the achievement of a people’s Europe » (= Les objectifs généraux de la Communauté, tels que la
réalisation de l’Europe des citoyens). The concept of people’s Europe is one of the objective of the
community, of the European construction.

Conclusion. Thus, progressively, if we try to sum up, the concept of Citizen of Europe (= people’s Europe)
is link to economic right, daily life right. This citizen Europe concept create a link between nationals of the
MS of the EU. But ,there is an important limit. Via the concept of “Citizens’ Europe”, all the Community
institutions rallied to the idea of an emerging citizenship (= toutes les institutions communautaires se sont
ralliées à l'idée d'une citoyenneté émergente). And, a set of rights emerged to create an identity/ a sense
of belonging to a common area and entity/body. But, there is no global approach, no reference to aCEU.
That’s why the Maastricht T was a turning point (=tournant);

III - The enshrinement (=consécration) of the « CEU » by the Maastricht Treaty 1992

The textual consecration of the legal concept of citizenship for EU takes place with the adoption of
Maastricht T. This reference to the CEU in this T can be seen as the csq of the progressive
conceptualisation. Or, you can consider it’s an accident due to the negotiation. Clearly the Maastricht T is
the turning point/milestone(=étape importante) in the European integration process.


What was introduce? There is the introduction of a new part of the EC Treaty devoted to (=consacré à) the
« Citizenship of the Union ». A whole chapter/subdivision is dedicated to the CEU. In this new part, there
is, firstly, a general provision dedicated to the concept of CEU itself (Art 8 ECT after MT): « Citizenship of
the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen
of the Union  » (=La citoyenneté de l'Union est établie par les présentes dispositions. Toute P ayant la
nationalité d'un EM est un citoyen de l’Union). This is a recognition of the mere concept (=simple concept)
of the CEU. There is precision concerning this attribution. Now its Art 20 TFEU (and Art 9 TFEU in some
ways). General provision dedicated to the concept its juste explain that CEU is hereby established. CEU
exist, there is a presentation of the criterium to have this CEU. This is the presentation of what the CEU is.
And then there is list of right granted to citizens fi the EU. Now we have the primary law, the concept
and the right. So we have a CEU since 1992.

Then, is this new part part there is a list of rights granted to citizens of the EU (art 8a to 8 e after MT and
now its art 21 to 24 TFEU). There is # rights granted. There is the right to move and reside freely within
the territory of the MS(now in 21 TFEU). Also, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at
municipal elections in the MS in which the citizen of another MS resides, under the same conditions
as nationals of that State(now 22 TFEU). Equally, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which the citizen of another MS resides,
under the same conditions as nationals of that State(22 TFEU). And, the right of protection by the
diplomatic or consular authorities of any MS, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State(23
TFEU), the right to petition the European Parliament(24§2 TFEU), the right to apply to the
Ombudsman (24§3 TFEU).

We created the CEU but we put the provision in the EC Treaty. The first explication is that we want to
introduce this new right as an economic right. In 1992 we create the CEU but at that time the EU is
specific entity not an interN organisation so we link the provisions in the T of EC.

IV - The cautious evolutions (=évolutions prudentes) by successive amending treaties

Let’s have look on amending treaties. First, Amsterdam T 1997 give 3 innovations. Is not very important
innovations. In the first place, he completed the general disposition (8 TEC, now 20 TFEU) with a third
sentence: «Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship ». Moreover, he
added a new § concerning the right to write in its own language (to the EP and the Ombudsman, now
24§4 TFEU). In a third place, he created a new right. It’s the right of access to the EP, Council and
Commission documents (now 15§3 TFUE). Its mean that if for any work, or for daily life, if you need a
document that is not accessible you can ask for it. You have specific forms to ask for document. They can
refuse, of course, but they have to explain why.

Likewise (=également), there is the Nice T 2001 who give 2 things. In the first place, he give one precision
concerning the right to write in its own language. And, there is an important innovation that is not in the
treaty itself but happen at the same time : the proclamation fo the EU Charter of fundamental
rights(EUCFR). When the Nice T was signed the EUCFR was proclaimed officially. In this Charter, there is
a subdivision concerning the CEU so there is another source of the CEU. One of its subdivision is entitled
“Citizenship”. At that time, in 2001, it was not a binding instrument more a political instrument. And,
it’s essentially a repetition of the rights guaranteed by the treaties, but with some variations sometimes.

The last amending treaty is the Lisbonne T 2007 who give 3 importants innovations about CEU. Firstly, he
give a new general provision in the TEU (itself) : art 9 TEU « Every national of a Member State shall be a
citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship » (=
Tout ressortissant d'un EM est citoyen de l'Union. La citoyenneté de l'Union s'ajoute à la citoyenneté
nationale et ne la remplace pas). The provision concerning the CEU where introduce in the TEC who
became the TFEU. But, with Lisbonne T, we decided to had another provision in the T of EU itself. It’s like
a symbol because the TEU is considered like the « constitutional part of the treaties/primary law ». This is
here more or less a duplication of art 20 TFEU.

Otherwise, Lisbonne T give some «  new  » (collective) rights in TFEU in a title II dedicated to the
«  democratic principles  » : «  participation in the democratic life of the Union » (article 10 TEU - the
Citizens’ Initiative = article 11 TEU + 24 sub§ 1 TFEU). Is not in the TEU. This is not concret right but more
about political concept and about the participatory democracy. Is link to the concept of CEU. More
important is 11 TEU/24 TFEU : the European Citizens Initiative. It’s a kind of citizen initiative at the level of
the European Union.

Furthermore, he give new legal force of the EUCFR. This Charter became legally bounding. It’s meaning
we had the liste of right (T Maastricht), now we have 2 list of cities right.

So, the EUCFR legally binding since 2009. Now, it’s a part of the primary law of the EU. Inside, there is 12
references to “citizens” or “citizenship” and the Preamble of the Charter of fundamental rights who say
« The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful
future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the
indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles
of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing
the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice »(=Les peuples
d'Europe, en créant une union toujours + étroite entre eux, sont résolus à partager un avenir pacifique
fondé sur des valeurs communes. Consciente de son héritage spirituel et moral, l'Union est fondée sur les
valeurs indivisibles et universelles de dignité humaine, de liberté, d'égalité et de solidarité; il repose sur les
principes de la démocratie et de l’État de droit. Elle place l'individu au cœur de ses activités, en
établissant la citoyenneté de l'Union et en créant un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice). Also,
Chapter V of the Charter entitled “citizen’s rights”.

We can quote some rights. Art 39 : Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European
Parliament. Art 40 : Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections .Art 41 : Right to
good administration. Art 42 : Right of access to documents. Art 43 : Right to refer to the Ombudsman of
the Union. Art 44 : Right to petition. Art 45 : Freedom of movement and residence. Art 46 : Diplomatic and
consular protection.


Thus, we can compare the 2 lists of rights that is to say the list of TFEU and the list of the Charter.
Quantitatively, most of the guaranteed rights are the same as in the TFEU BUT there is one additional
right: right to good administration (art. 41). In TFEU, there is several rights in the same art. For instance :
24 TFEU. Qualitatively, most of the guaranteed rights are the same as in the TFEU, with the same
formulation. BUT some rights seems to be “stricter” in the EUCFR and art. 52(2) EUCFR: «  Rights
recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the
conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties  » (=Les D reconnus par la présente charte et
prévus dans les traités sont exercés dans les conditions et dans les limites définies par ces traités). It is
important that there is right but what is very important? In Charter, is more a human right approach/
political and democracy approach. The first right recognize in link with CEU is the free to move. It’s an
economic right. It’s still first an economic approach and then political approach. The approach is not the
same because the objective/history of these texts are almost the same, this is important to understand the
context of the CEU = not the same order than in the TFEU! Not the same role for the two texts!

Conclusion. In conclusion to the building of the concept of CEU, we can sum up quickly : From (1)
individuals being legal subjects in the Community legal order, with mainly economic rights to facilitate
mobility, to (2) a Citizens’ Europe conceived as a daily Europe (daily life rights and symbols), developing
through secondary law. Then (3), the recognition of the concept at a primary law level + political rights. (=
De (1) les individus en tant que sujets de D dans l’ordre juridique communautaire, avec principalement des
D économiques pour faciliter la mobilité, à (2) une Europe des citoyens conçue comme une Europe
quotidienne (D et symboles de la vie quotidienne), se développant par le D secondaire. Puis (3), la
reconnaissance du concept au niveau du D primaire + droits politiques).

Chapter II. The state of the law (= l’état du D) concerning the citizenship of the EU
Only primary law. There is about 100 references of the words « citizen(s) » or « citizenship » in
primary law today. And, 2 lists of the EU citizens’ rights : in the TFEU (art. 21 to 24) and in the
EUCFR (art. 39 to 46)

I - In the TEU (Treaty on European Union)

= 36 references

in the preamble

§ 10: “RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries” (d'établir une
citoyenneté commune aux ressortissants de leur pays»)

§. 13: “RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity”

in art 1, §2 (about the fundamental objective of the EU)


« This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

in art. 3, §2 (concerning the main objectives of the EU)


“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers,
in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with
respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
[...]”

In a specific title dedicated to “Provisions on democratic principles” (title II) (=«Dispositions

relatives aux principes démocratiques»)

= art. 9 : “In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who
shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a
MS shall be a citizen of the Union. CE shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship”

= art. 10: rights liked to the representative democracy

= art. 11: Citizens’ Initiative

In a specific title dedicated to “Provisions on the institutions” (title III)


= art. 13 (the institutional framework in general), art. 14 (the European Parliament) & art. 35 (the
diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries
and international conferences)

II - In the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

= 20 references

1. the subdivision (Part II) devoted to the list of the rights of the citizens of the EU (articles 20 to
24)

Art 20 = elements of definition + list (“inter alia”) of rights then described in the next 4 art. Art 21 =
right to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS Art 22 = right to vote and to stand as a
candidate at municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in
which he resides. Art 23 = right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any MS Art
24 = “legislative” (citizens' initiative) and “administrative” (right to petition to the EP; right to apply to
the Ombudsman; right to write in its own language) rights

2. some scattered (=dispersées) provisions


- article 15: right of access to documents of the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies -
article 227 and 228: precisions concerning the right to address petition to the EP AND the right to
apply to the Ombudsman

3. in the context of some EU policies


- Article 77: AFSJ / POLICIES ON BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION - Article 170:
TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORKS

III - In the protocols and declarations

= 17 references to the citizenship of the EU found in various protocols and declarations annexed to
the treaties

In order to restate the link between integration and the citizenship/citizens Ex 1: protocol (no 2) on
the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality Ex 2: protocol (no 24) on asylum
for nationals of MS of the european union. Or, in order to organize the derogatory status or face the
reluctance of some MS. Ex 1: protocol (no 20) on the application of certain aspects of article 26 of
the treaty on the functioning of

the European union to the united kingdom and to Ireland

Ex 2: Declaration by Ireland on Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and
Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice

Ex 3: Declaration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the def of the term
« nationals ».

IV - In the EU Charter of Human Rights (EUCFR)

= 12 references

1. specific subdivision/title: TITLE V - CITIZENS' RIGHTS (art. 39 to 46)

art. 39: Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament ,  art. 40:
Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections, art. 41: right to good administration
, art. 42: Right of access to documents , art. 43: European Ombudsman, art. 44: Right to petition,
 art. 45: Freedom of movement and of residence ,art. 46: Diplomatic and consular protection 

2. some other references - in the preamble: 

The Union “places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the
Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” (al. 2) 

- under Title II “Freedoms” 

Article 12 - Freedom of assembly and of association

Article 15 - Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

Finally, today in TFEU and EUCFR, there is a set (=un ensemble) of numerous rules/rights described
as “the fundamental status of nationals of the MS” by ECJ.

In TFEU, we have Art 21: right to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS. Art 22 : right
to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections and in elections to the European
Parliament in the MS in which he resides. Art 23 : right to protection by the diplomatic or consular
authorities of any MS. Art 24 : “legislative” (citizens' initiative) and “administrative” (right to petition
to the EP; right to apply to the Ombudsman; right to write in its own language) rights.

We can make comparison of the lists of EU citizens’ rights in the TFEU and the EUCFR.
Quantitatively, the number of rights is the same BUT there is one additional right in the EUCFR: right
to good administration (art. 41). Qualitatively: Most of the guaranteed rights are the same as in the
TFEU, with the same formulation. But, some rights seems to be “stricter” in the EUCFR. And, art.
52(2) EUCFR: “Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be
exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties”. And the right are not
listed in the same order (HR/political approach v. economic approach).

Chapter III & IV. Specificities of the citizenship of the EU

Why and how is the CEU specific ? What’s the reason? There is # adjectifs. If you read articles about
CEU, there is various adjectifs. They call CEU: elusive (=insaisissable), superimposed, specialized,
incomplete, ancillary (=accessoire), derived, imperfect, parasitic, complementary, unique, deficient,
dependent. Here, what is interesting is that is very specific compare to the nationals citizenship. If we
look at these # words, we can see that some are positifs, some are negatives or neutral. It depend on
# point of vu. Exemple : complementary can be view in a negative way. There is # approaches. It
depend on what you expect from the CEU. CEU can be see like the cornerstone (=pierre angulaire) of
the integration but it’s also can only be complementary. Some point of vu think CEU is enough (too
much?) integration. If you read articles about the CEU, they use # adjectives. Some of them are
positive and others are negative. If you're a proponent (=partisan) of a strong EU you'll be
disappointed because it's a complementary, it's not sufficiant but if you're against, you'll think it's
enough : the vision about the CEU depends on if you're a defendant of the EU or not.

I - The specificities of the concept : the personal scope, a dependent citizenship

This is the personal scope. It’s a dependent citizenship. There is csq from this dependance. Who is
concern? Who can be a citizen of the EU? And, why the CEU is dependent? Because it’s a concept,
it’s depend on nationality. It’s a choice make by MS, the writers of the treaties. It’s about the CEU and
nationality and about the personal scope of the CEU. The study of the personal scope of the CEU
shows that it's dependant. The Q is who's concerned by the CEU, who can be a citizen of the EU ?
The CEU is dependant because it's a concept dependants of another concept : the fact of being a
national in a MS. It’s a choice made by the MS, they decided to make the CEU derivative of the
nationality.

A/The choice of a citizenship of the EU derivative of nationality

Who is a citizen of the EU? Why are you citizens of the EU? There is in the primary law of the EU.
There is Art 9 TEU «  Every national of a MS shall be(= doit ê) a citizen of the Union. (…)  ». The
choice is quite clear, they made the CEU dependant of the nationality of the MS. There is an
inextricable link between the CEU and the nationality. Also, according to Art 20 TFEU « 1. CEU is
hereby established. Every P holding the nationality of a MS shall be a citizen of the Union. (…) ».
We have 2 provisions. It’s clear that CEU depend on nationality. If you want to be a citizen of the
EU, you have to be a national of a MS. There is an inextricable link between the CEU/nationality.

20 TFEU say « CEU is hereby established » = it’s mean that CEU exist. The CEU is conferred directly
on every EU citizen by the TFEU. It’s also mean that there is no procedure. This is a way to implicitly
insist on the fact that the EU law have no role concerning the attribution of CEU. It’s an automatic
citizenship. This possible only because we have the 2nd sentence : « Every P holding the nationality
of a MS shall be a citizen of the Union  ». There is a link between this 2 sentences. The CEU is
dependent on an “external” criterion/condition. The condition is the nationality of a MS. Nationality
= NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT condition. CEU, thus, it’s completely dependent on nationality. CEU
DERIVATIVE of nationality and CONDITIONAL on it. « CEU is hereby established » = the CEU
exists and it's not said that the CEU is given, attributed to someone but it's confered directly to
every national (there's no procedure).It’s also a way to implicitely insist that the EU law has no role
concerning the attribution of the citizenship. « Every P holding the nationality of a MS shall be a
citizen of the Union » = the CEU is dependant on an « external » criteria that is not linked to EU law
and their criteria to identify a citizen of the EU is the nationality of a MS : it’s a necessary and
sufficiant condition. That’s why we can say the CEU is completely dependant of the nationality of
MS, it's derivative of the nationality

Conclusion. CEU exist. Is dependent on external criterion(= external from EU law) and the condition
is to holding the nationality of a MS. It from the national law.

But, what is nationality? It’s a status or legal relationship owing to which the individual is subject to a
state’s jurisdiction. It’s a legal and political belonging of an individual to the population of a State(=
the EU MS) (=C’est un statut ou une relation juri en vertu de laquelle l’individu est soumis à la
juridiction d’un État. Il s’agit d’une appartenance juri et politique d’un individu à la pop d’un État).

What other options did they have to confere the CEU ? There is others choices existing. Which other
options ? The criterion would be the residence, but there is a limit here : the persons would change,
live in # countries in the world , it’s complicated to manage (= à gérer).

First, we have an autonomous CEU: without any link with the status of the P in the MS. Exemple :
resident. This wasn't chosen because of various reasons. First, political reason: only a State can grant
a citizenship. It would have been too much in the integration process of the EU. And there is
practical reason : what about the combination of the two citizenships ? Some people would have
been only a citizen of their country or of the EU, some would have had both of them.

And, there is a CE conditional on national citizenship: the # between the nationality and the
citizenship is not that important in some States whereas it is in others (= la d# entre la nationalité et
la citoyenneté n'est pas si importante dans certains États alors qu'elle l'est dans d’autres).
Sometimes people are nationals but aren't citizens. Exemple: minors, persons deprived of their civil
and political rights, adults on the groundship.

Actually, we are in the way to create an autonomous CEU who is not link with nationality or national
citizenship but with the status, with a specific procedure. There is limit too here : create a difficulty to
keep CEU for nationals of MS who decide to leave EU. For instance : RU with Brexit. Also, there is a
political reason : who can grant an autonomous citizenship? The state. So it would be to close of the
state. It would link to sovereignty. And, it would raise the issue of combinaison, the risk of multiples
situations with national, nationality, national citizenship and CEU. Some nationals would have this
citizenship but some others no. So, we will have 2 citizenships in the EU. It’s difficult to see who
have CEU or not.

So there is another option : a CEU conditional on national citizenship. It seems like there is no #. It’s
depend on personal approach. There is # on nationality and citizenship. Exemple : in Fr there is #
between nationals and citizens. Not all the French nationals are French citizens like children or
some persons who are residents but not nationals. If look at some take from EU law, there is a Report
from the Commission 2019 about the problem of citizenship for residents for any person who invest
in the country. In this report there is always a confusion between the nationality and the citizenship.
This confusion is in # texts from EU law. It’s important to dev this feeling of common sens
belonging(=sentiment d’appartenance commun), European feeling for children and students to
make them citizens of the EU at the beginning. In English we talk about the nationals : persons who
have the nationality. But in Fr, national is « ressortissant ». Report from the Commission of 2019 is
about the pbs of MS who grant citizenship or residence to any person who invest in the country
(Golden Passeport). There is always a confusion between nationality and citizenship.

the advantage of the nationality criteria is that it makes the personal scope of the CEU broader (+
large). Who are are the beneficiaries of the CEU ? Every nationals of a MS (=ressortissants des EM). 


B/The consequences of a citizenship of the EU conditional on nationality

1 - The consequences for the acquisition of the citizenship of the EU

The csq of the choice made by MS is that you have to have the nationality to have CEU.

a)A broader personal scope of application (regarding the person who acquire CEU)

Any person with the nationality of a MS is concerned not only nationals citizens. Regarding the
persons who acquire the citizenship of the EU, every nationals of a MS is a citizen of the EU, not
only national citizens. In Fr : « sont citoyens fr les P ayant la nationalité fr et jouissant de leurs D
civils et politiques » Donc, les mineurs, P déchues de leurs D par un tribunal, majeurs sous tutelle
sont exclus. in France there's a big # between the nationality and the citizenship.

There is ECJ case law on minor children. Implicitly : ECJ, 2003, Garcia Avello v. Belgium =
recognized that minor children are citizens of the Union. according to the ECJ, the refusal of the
Belgium state led to a discrimination based on nationality which is contrary to art 20 TFEU, to the
provisions about the CEU. Explicitly : ECJ, 2004, Zhu et Chen + ECJ, 2011, Zambrano = « the right
of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS, and the right of
residence, confer on a young minor who is a national of a MS (...) a right to reside for an indefinitive
period in that State » . The right of every citizen is applicable to a young minor who's a national of a
State and because it's a young citizen, the right is also granted to his/her family if they don't have
the right themselves. In the Zhu and Chen case, the parents were chineese and their child was born
in Ireland so he obtained the irish nationality and Ms Chen decided to leave in the UK but the British
authorities refused to give the permission to enter in the country to her and her child so the case was
brought to the ECJ and the answer was that this child has the nationality and so is a citizen of the EU
and can move freely but the mother wasn't a national so she doesn't have the same right but the
ECJ recognizes the right to the mother also (and to the whole family).

In Fr, «  Sont citoyens fr les P ayant la nationalité fr et jouissant de leurs D civils et politiques  ».
Exemple: D de vote. En effet, la qualité de citoyen est d’abord liée à la détention de la nationalité.
Ce lien est très fort en France à la # de certaines démocraties (ex : certains pays scandinaves). Mais, si
la nationalité est une condition nécessaire, elle n’est pas suffisante. Au sens strict, il faut aussi jouir
de ses D civils et politiques. Cette condition semble, d’un point de vue juridique, exclure de la
citoyenneté les mineurs, les majeurs sous tutelle et les P déchues de ces droits par les tribunaux. En
ce qui concerne les P sous tutelle, la réforme du 5 mars 2007 prévoit que le J statue sur le maintien
ou la suppression du D de vote de la P protégée, la privation des D civiques devient l’exception.
Toutefois, le lien traditionnel entre nationalité et citoyenneté tend à s’estomper sous l’effet de la
construction européenne. En effet, depuis le T de Maastricht de 1992 (et la révision de la C fr qui l’a
suivi), les ressortissants d’un État de l’UE résidants dans un autre État de l’Union que le leur peuvent
participer aux élections municipales et euro et s’y faire élire. Ils sont ainsi dotés d’un des éléments
essentiels de la citoyenneté, le D de vote, sans ê nationaux de l’État considéré.

There is a real # between a French national and a French citizen. Even if there are no nationals
citizen they can be EU citizens. The ECJ confond itself. In several cases, recognize that children are
citizen of the Union, minor children are citizens of the Union. In the first case, the ECJ recognize
implicitly that minor child is a citizen of the Union :ECJ, 2003, Garcia Avello v. Belgium. According
to Belgium law, a child will take the surname of his father. But according to the Spanish customs, a
child will take the first surname of each of parents. So, the parents wanted to change the first name of
their children. They says it will create difficulties for the children in his life because he have # name
in Belgium/Spain. It’s a difficulty for the right to move freely because the name will be #. Belgium
authorities refuse the change and Belgium CE has made a «  renvoi prejudiciel  ». The Belgium CE
wonder if the refuse from Belgium authority is contrary with the CEU and the right to freely move.
ECJ says that this refused is contrary to the concept of CEU. This implied that ECJ recognize that
principle of CEU applied on children.

Then the ECJ recognize explicitly into famous cases : ECJ, 2004, Zhu et Chen and ECJ 2011,
Zambrano. « the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of
the MS, and the right of residence, confer on a young minor who is a national of a MS [...] a right
to reside for an indefinite period in that State. In such circumstances, those same provisions allow a
parent who is that minor’s primary carer to reside with the child in the host MS ». It’s meaning that
the right of every citizen of EU it’s applicable on every one who is national of a MS.

In Zhu and Chen case, the child were a baby. The 2nd child was born in Ireland and in the csq he
obtain legally the Irish nationality. After the birth of the 2nd child, Mrs Chen decide to leave in the
UK. He says the child is a citizens of EU so he have the right to move freely. There is a difficulty : The
mother wasn’t a national so she doesn’t have the same right. The same provision allow the parents to
receive in the MS. In that case, the ECJ decide that the British authorities could not refuse the daily
of the child because of the CEU of the child. This case was criticize by MS state because it pose pb
concerning the immigration.

Citizens have the right to move freely but there is some conditions. We can see here the advantage of
the choice of the concept of « nationality » rather than « national citizenship ».

b) An automatic acquisition (regarding the conditions for the acquisition of the CEU)

There is no specific condition / no specific procedure. It’s automatic. Because you are a national you
are a citizen of EU. It’s automatic because there is no procedure. But the opposite is not true : the
CEU does not confer the nationality of a MS. Is not a way to have multiple nationality too. This is an
« acquisition » more than « attribution ». Regarding the condition for acquisition of the CEU there's
no specific condition, no specific procedure : the procedure to acquire the CEU is the procedure to
acquire the nationality of the MS. That’s why we talk more about the acquisition and not about the
attribution of the CEU.
c) Variable conditions and procedures, an exclusive competence of MS to decide who is a citizen of
EU. (regarding the conditions and procedures of the attribution of nationality) What is the point of
a CEU conditional on nationality rather than on national citizenship?

Regarding the rules and procedures for the attribution of nationality, it’s an exclusive competence of
the MS to decide who can acquire the CEU because :

There is third csq of the link between nationality/CEU. It is an exclusive competence of the MS to
grant their nationalities. And, the EU laws confers the possibility to adapt the scope of « nationals »
for Community purposes(= des fins communautaire). There is 4 csq if this automatic acquisition. First,
No competence for the EU on the attribution of nationality, thus on the acquisition of the CEU.
There is no secondary law concerning the condition/procedure for the attribution of nationality.
There is no commun rule adopted in the EU level concerning the granted of nationality.Exclusive
competence of MS to grant the nationality. MS decide the condition, the criterium of this nationality.
There is no specific EU law concerning the attribution of nationality.

There is only one limite concerning this exclusive competence. It’s a limit from the interN law from a
case : ICJ (Cours InterN de Justice), 6 April 1955, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala « Nottebohm case» A
citizen decide to settle in Guatemala. He have family in Germany. One of his brother settle in
Liechtenstein and he go see him. He obtain nationality after juste a few days. During this time, he
obtain naturalisation so the nationality of Liechtenstein. Then, he stay in Guatemala. He was arrested
by Guatemala authorities. A sanction were imposed on him on the grounds that he was a national for
Germany (an enemy at that time). ICJ speak about the the principle of a « (real and) effective
nationality  » «(…) the Court must ascertain whether (= verifier si) it is possible to regard the
nationality conferred upon him [M. Nottebohm] as real and effective, as the exact juridical
expression of a social fact of a connection which existed previously or came into existence
thereafter  ». (= en tant qu'expression juridique exacte d'un fait social d'un lien qui a existé
auparavant ou qui s'est produit par la suite). There must be a meaningful connection (=connexion
significative) to the state to be proven. For ICJ, the nationality can only be attributed if it’s real and
effective. Its to avoid the state that attribute the nationality to easy. There is an exclusive competence
of MS not for the EU but in the limit of interN law.

Since there's an exclusive competence of MS to grant their nationalities, no competence of the EU for
the acquisition of the CEU because exclusive competence of MS to grant the nationality. One limit
concerning the exclusive competence : ICJ, 1955, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala (Nottebohm case) =
exclusive competence of the States to attribute the nationality but there's a principle of a real and
effective nationality + meaningful connection to the State. Moreover there are various conditions,
rules, procedures to acquire the nationality of the State (and so the CEU): birth/mariage/
naturalisation. Usually those procedures are used to acquire the nationality and sometimes there are
csq like in some States, if you marry someone from another State and acquire the nationality of that
State, you lose the native nationality.

Since the conditions in the # States are #, it can be harder in some States and easier and others =
«nationality shopping». Those rules and the nationality is opposable to other MS (even third States)
= the CEU is opposable of other MS. It’s confirmed by ECJ, 7 July 1992, Micheletti who say that it’s
not possible for another MS to impose specific additional conditions for recognition of the
nationality with a view to the exercise of the treaties. opposable to other MS (and even third States)
In that case a MS impose on Mr.Michelletti a condition. Mr.Michelletti were Italian/Argentinian.
Spain refuse to delivered the Spanish national because he was Italian and Argentinian. According to
the Spanish law he was more Argentinian that a citizen of EU. Spain can not ask a person to reside
in a specific state to be a citizen of EU.
There is a possible adaptation of the scope of « nationals ». There is a DECLARATION on nationality
of a MS in TM, no more today. If we look at this Declaration,“The Conference declares that, wherever
in the Treaty establishing the European Community reference is made to nationals of the MS, 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. Member States may declare, for
information, who are to be considered their nationals for Community purposes by way of a
declaration lodged with the Presidency and may amend any such declaration when necessary.” (=
«La Conférence déclare que, partout où dans le traité instituant la Communauté européenne il est fait
référence aux ressortissants des EM, la Q de savoir si une P phy possède la nationalité d'un EM est
réglée uniquement par référence au DN de l’EM concerné. Les EM peuvent déclarer, à titre
d'information, qui doivent ê considérés comme leurs ressortissants aux fins communautaires au
moyen d'une déclaration déposée auprès de la présidence et peuvent modifier cette déclaration si
nécessaire). MS can decide that the scope of the concept of “nationals” is not the same in the
context of EU law and in the context of national law/legal order. MS can adapt the scope of
nationals for each community provision. There is not specific to the issue of the CEU and true
concerning any provision relating to « nationals ».

The exclusive competence for MS have csq : various conditions/rules/procedure. Usually there is 3
ways to have nationality : birth/naturalisation/marriage. There is the «right of blood», «right of
birthplace». It can be the combinaison of these situations. The consequence is not always the same.
In some states when you marry a national from an another state, you lose the nationality of your
native state. There is not necessarily the same cases and same consequences. To be a citizen of EU is
easier in some states. It is also an element to explain immigration. The acquisition of the nationality,
thus of EU citizenship can be easier in same MS than in others.

EU law confers MS the possibility to adapt the scope of nationals for « Community purposes »
=objectifs communautaires. There is a declaration annexed to the Amsterdam treaty who say that MS
can adapt the personal scope of nationals, it can be different whether they apply national or
community law and there is 2 possibilities to adapt : First, restrict = some nationals of some MS do
not enjoy/are not granted all of the rights of the citizens of the EU. And, broader = some third-
countries nationals can enjoy some of the rights of the citizens of the EU. ECJ, 2006 – Spain v. UK
(Matthew case) = accepted that some rights of another country to certain persons who have close
links to them, other than their own nationals or citizens of the Union resident in their territory. ECJ
accepted that the right to vote was granted to this nationals of common wealth countries. This
persons have close link with MS. She accept because nationals of Gibraltar are closeting to the
United Kingdom. (= a accepté que certains D d'un autre pays soient accordés à certaines P qui ont
des liens étroits avec eux, autres que leurs propres ressortissants ou citoyens de l'Union résidant sur
leur territoire. La CJUE a admis que le D de vote était accordé à ces ressortissants des pays à richesse
commune. Ces P ont un lien étroit avec l’EM. Elle accepte parce que les ressortissants de Gibraltar
se rapprochent du RU).

Some nationals of some MS, in some cases, do not enjoy/are not granted all fo the right of the
citizens of EU. For instance : the right to move and reside freely within the MS. We can take exemple,
it’s a fact for nationals of Faroe Island/The Channel Island of Man. Kingdon, 1999 imposing the
access of Gibraltar residents to elections. UK decided to grant the right to vote and the right to stand
as candidate for EP elections to residents of Gibraltar. It’s possible to decide who would be a
nationals. In Gibraltar if you are a national you have the CEU. But some persons there were not
nationals. There are electors in UK elections but there are not nationals. UK decide they should have
the right to vote for the Parlement election.
d)A (reverse) impact on national laws? (= législations N) regarding the csq of the nationality of a
MS on another MS.

Is due to the impact one ECJ law. ECJ oct 2003, Garcia Avello v Belgium.

Regarding the consequences of the nationality of a MS on another MS. In the name of the CEU, the
ECJ took decisions and decided in which case the MS can not apply anymore their national rules to
their nationals and they have to accept the csq of the application of the national rules of another MS.
It's usually in cases of dual nationality or exercise of the right to move and reside freely within the
MS. We can take examples of this consequence.

In ECJ,2003, Garvia Avello v. Belgium there was 2 children with dual nationality (Belgian + Spanish)
with # surname (= nom de famille) in Spain and in Belgium. Parents request Belgium to change the
surname of the children in favour of the one resulting from the Spanish rule (name of father/mother).
There was a refusal from the Belgian authorities = preliminary rulings from the Belgian Conseil d’Etat.
There is the Q as to whether the refusal was contrary to Community law, in particular the principles
relating to CEU and the freedom of movement of citizens. Because of (= du fait de) the second
nationality, Belgium had to accept the change of name, even if it didn't respected the Belgium law
concerning the surname.

« 36. As the Advocate General has pointed out in 656 of his Opinion, it is common ground that such
a discrepancy (=discordance) in surnames is liable to cause serious inconvenience for those
concerned at both professional and private levels resulting from, inter alia, difficulties in benefiting,
in one MS of which they are nationals, from the legal effects of diplomas or documents drawn up in
the surname recognised in another MS of which they are also nationals.. […] » « 45. […] Articles 12
EC and 17 EC [now 20 TFEU] must be construed (= interprétés) as precluding (=interdisant), in
circumstances, such as those of the case, in the main proceedings, the administrative authority of a
MS from refusing to grant an application for a change of surname made on behalf of minor children
resident in that State and having dual nationality of that State and of another MS, in the case where
the purpose of that application is to enable those children to bear (= de porter) the surname to
which they are entitled according to the law and tradition of the second MS ». So, there is a risk of
serious inconvenience + discrimination on the grounds of nationality. It’s a situation internal to
Belgium but the CEU allowed the 2 children to oppose the csq of their second nationality to their
national MS of residence. Because of the second nationality, Belgium has to accept to change the
name of children even if the children have a name who is not correct in Belgium law. We can see
CUE have an impact in national law. They have to accept the csq on application of national law.

In ECJ, 2008, Grunkin-Paul v. Standesamt Niebüll, it’s also a case of change of the surname but there
was no dual nationality. However the ECJ applied the same rule as in the previous case. The German
state had to accept the Danish (=danoise) law. There was no dual nationality BUT, the exercise of the
right to move and reside freely. It concerns a change of surname for children. ECJ applied the same
solution that in Garcia Avello this time because the children exercice his right to move freely. 2
German nationals had a child and they ask a surname wit a «  double barrer  ». But in Germany,
normally, there is no name with this. The German authorities have to accept to register the child with
this name. The parents exercice their right to move freely. If the name is # into # state, its a problem
for identity documents (for instance). Its a way to create difficulties to exercice the right of move
freely.

In ECJ,14 November 2017, Toufik Lounes, Mme Ozmazabal, Spanish national resides in the UK
since 1996 for studies and obtained in 2009 the British nationality, and kept its Spanish nationality
(dual nationality). In 2014, she married an Algerian national, M. Lounes, being in illegal situation in
the UK since 2010. A removal order was taken by the UK authorities against M. Lounes and in 2014.
Is the refusal to deliver a residence permit contrary to EU law ? Because of the naturalisation, it's a
situation between a MS and its nationals so the directive on the free movement of citizens does not
apply but the court considered that because of the dual nationality there is the exercise of the right to
move and reside freely. So, art 21 TFEU applies. Is not about the change of name. ECJ extended the
right of EU citizens and create an obligation in MS. It’s a Spanish national who go to the UK since
1996 for studies. In 2009, she obtained the British Nationality and kept its Spanish nationality (dual
nationality). In 2014, she married an Algerian, being in illegal situation in UK. A removal order
(=décision d’éloignement) taken by the UK authorities against M Lounes. In 2014 M Lounes asked for
a residence permit in the UK as family member(FM) of a national of a MS of the EU. It could be
considerate like a internal situation, normally the directive not implied but ECJ decided that because
of the naturalization of the Spanish, there is a situation between a MS and its national.There is a link
with EU law. ECJ explain that even if everything is about the UK, in internal situation the condition
must not be stricter than in the case where there is a no internal situation. If the Spanish was not
naturalize, the condition must not be stricter. Un ressortissant d’un État non UE, membre de la
famille d’un citoyen de l’Union, peut bénéficier d’un droit de séjour dans l’État membre dans lequel
ce citoyen a séjourné avant d’en acquérir la nationalité en sus de sa nationalité d’origine. Les
conditions d’octroi de ce droit de séjour ne doivent pas être plus strictes que celles prévues par la
directive sur le droit de libre circulation des citoyens de l’Union

Avoiding discrimination against nationals is the objectif of citizenship law, to avoid that nationals
being treated #. In this case, the situation were more in favor for EU citizens than for the for the
national. « the third-country national is eligible for a derived right of residence under art 21 TFEU, on
conditions which must not be stricter than those provided for by directive 2004/38 for the grant of
such a right to a third country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has
exercised his right of freedom of movement (= le ressortissant de pays tiers est éligible à un droit de
séjour dérivé en vertu de l'article 21 TFUE, à des conditions qui ne doivent pas être plus strictes que
celles prévues par la directive 2004/38 pour l'octroi d'un tel droit à un ressortissant de pays tiers
qui est une famille membre d'un citoyen de l'Union ayant exercé son droit à la libre circulation) by
setting in a MS other than the MS of which he is a national ». In consequence, the UK cannot apply
its own rules to its nationals if they are stricter than the rule applicable to nationals of other MS as
citizens of the EU + case of « reverse discrimination » (normally EU law on citizenship is trying to
avoid the discrimination against citizens of the EU but here, the objective is to avoid discrimination
against nationals). Le Royaume-Uni ne peut pas appliquer ses propres règles à ses ressortissants si
elles sont plus strictes que la règle applicable aux ressortissants d'autres EM en tant que citoyens de
l’UE.

The decision of ECJ say that because of the naturalisation, it’s a situation between a MS and its
national. In csq, the 2004/38/EC Directive on the free movement of citizens does not apply. But,
because of the dual nationality resulting from the exercise of the right to move and reside freely, art.
21 TFEU applies. « The third-country national is eligible for a derived right of residence under Article
21(1) TFEU, on conditions which must not be stricter than those provided for by Directive 2004/38
for the grant of such a right to a thirdcountry national who is a family member of a Union citizen who
has exercised his right of freedom of movement by settling in a Member State other than the Member
State of which he is a national  » (= Le ressortissant de pays tiers peut bénéficier d'un D de séjour
dérivé au titre de l'art 21§1 TFUE, à des conditions qui ne doivent pas ê + strictes que celles prévues
par la directive 2004/38 pour l'octroi d'un tel droit à un ressortissant de pays tiers qui est un membre
de la famille d'un citoyen de l'Union qui a exercé son D à la libre circulation en s'établissant dans
un EM autre que l'État membre dont il est ressortissant). In csq, The UK cannot apply its own rules
to its national if they are stricter than the rules applicable to nationals of other MS as citizens of the
EU. It’s a case of “reverse discrimination”

2 - The consequences for the loss of the citizenship of the EU

How can one lose the citizenship of the EU?

a)In case of the loss of the nationality of a MS

Since your no more a national you no more a national of the EU. It’s the first and traditional case.
Can you lose the national of the MS? Yes. What could happen? There is various situations. It could be
in case of deprivation of nationality(=privation de nationalité) or it could be a csq of marriage/being
rising out (=sortie) of MS for many years. There are 2 possibilities to lose your nationality, the first is
the individual loss of nationality then, there is the collective loss of nationality.

a1)the individual loss of nationality

It’s where a national of a MS loses its nationality in accordance with national rules. It’s automatic,
like acquisition. For instance, in Australia, in case of a a marriage, if you demande the nationality of
another state, you will lose your nationality. In Netherland, if you not in the state for many years, you
lose your nationality. There’s no rules implying the loss of EU citizenship only.

But, there is possible conditions/limitations by ECJ/EU law. Exemple : ECJ, 2 March 2010, Rottman,
C-135/08. Mr Rottman was an Australian national by birth. He acquired German nationality by
naturalisation so he lost his Australian nationality (according to Austrian law). Germany decided to
withdraw this naturalisation with retroactive effect on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently,
since he had not disclosed (= révélé) the fact that he was the subject of judicial investigation in
Austria. He had no more nationality, so it's stateless person. ECJ judgement say that the situation is a
matter of EU law since the withdrawal of nationality lead to the loss of the status of citizen of the
Union conferred by art 20 TFEU. And, there is conditions under EU law. The national authorities
have to check whether the national decision of withdrawal is justified by a reason relating to the
public interest and whether it respects the principle of proportionality (proportionality test). The
national authorities have to take into consideration the potential csq that such a decision entails
(=entraine) for the person concerned and, if relevant, for his family and to check whether it is
possible for that person to recover his original nationality.

We can take another example : ECJ, 2019, Tjebbes e.a. v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
according to which a person who’re a residence for more than 10 years in other state will lose his
nationality. Several person were concern with this Dutch nationality withdrawn. ECJ make the
proportionality test : have the appreciate the consequences on the right to move and reside freely. If
you know you will lost your nationality in 10 years, maybe you will not decide to move. Its make
the national reluctant to exercice there right to move and reside freely. The facts was that law on
Netherlands foresee loss of Netherlands nationality, if the person holds a foreign nationality and has
his principal residence for an uninterrupted period of 10 years outside the Netherlands. Several
persons was concerned. ECJ judgement imposes that national authorities examines the individual
situation and the consequences of the loss. ECJ judgement gives clarification on the proportionality
test = to appreciate the consequences on the exercise of « his or her right to move and reside freely
within the territory of the MS, […] on particular difficulties in continuing to travel to the Netherlands
or to another MS in order to retain genuine and regular links with members of his or her family, to
pursue his or her professional activity or to undertake the necessary steps to pursue that activity » (=
difficultés à continuer de se rendre aux Pays-Bas ou dans un autre EM afin de conserver des liens
authentiques et réguliers avec des mb de sa famille, de poursuivre son activité pro ou
d'entreprendre les démarches nécessaires pour exercer cette activité).

a2)the collective loss of nationality

You can lose your nationality collectively in case of independence of the part of the country, in case
of cessation too. There is referenda about independence. There are independence mouvement who
could one day led to cessation. Exemple : Scotland 2014: « No » 55,3%. Exemple :Nouvelle
Calédonie 2018: « Non » 56,67%. Exemple : Catalonia 2017: « Si » 90% (but not validated; illegal
referendum).

b) In case of the loss of the status of MS

If the state go out of the EU. For instance, in case of withdrawal (=retrait) like with the Brexit. The
condition to have the CEU it’s to be a NATIONAL of a MS. So, you loss of the citizenship without loss
of the nationality. UK nationals are no more citizens of EU. It’s the logic of automatic acquisition and
automatic loss. But it’s more complex, there is a negotiation to UK nationals keep some rights of CEU
and for that citizens of EU continue to reside of the UK. In case of withdrawal like Brexit, UK isn't a
member of the EU anymore so nationals aren't citizens of the EU (it’s a little bit more complicated in
reality because for a moment, some rights were still applying and the negociations for the exit aren't
easy). And, there is the loss of the citizenship without loss of the nationality but of the status of EU
MS (see criteria : «nationality of a MS »).

II - The specificities of the content(= le contenu): an ancillary/complementary citizenship (= une

citoyenneté accessoire), the substantive scope.

It’s the substantive scope. Why a complementary citzenship? because is a superimposed and
incomplet citizenship. It’s about citizenship of the EU and national citizenship and about the material
scope of the citizenship of the EU.

A/A superimposed (= superposée) citizenship

It’s about the relationship between the EU citizenship and the national citizenship. There is a link.

1- an additional citizenship

MS insisted on this aspect. MS wanted to had a sentence in Amsterdam T « Citizenship of the Union
shall complement and not replace national citizenship » (art 17 TCE). CEU not mean that you no
more a national citizen. It was replaced by Lisbonne: « Citizenship of the Union shall be additional
and not replace national citizenship » = art. 20 TFEU. As consequence, EU and national citizenship
are both linked to nationality. And, the CEU and the national citizenship do not create identical
rights. What could be the # to complement and to be additional? What was the risk? it add new
things but not things that national citizenship misses. But there is a risk: complement its could be
understood that CEU not exist in national citizenship. MS want to avoid that was an O to
complement. As consequences, each citizen of the EU has (normally) also a (or several) national
citizenship(s)/both linked to nationality. (= chaque citoyen de l'UE a, normalement, également une
ou plusieurs citoyenneté N). The CEU and the N citizenship do not create identical rights. They do
not merge. they are superimposed. The CEU is additional. It means also additional rights!

2- an innovative citizenship

rights that materialise only in the scope of EU law and rights that cannot be attributed by a single
State/through a national citizenship (=les droits qui ne se matérialisent que dans le champ
d'application du droit de l'UE et les droits qui ne peuvent être attribués par un seul État / par une
citoyenneté N). Why are they innovative ? These rights create links with the EU «  administration »,
require and favors links with the other MS: this concept of the « mobile citizen » (or moving citizen)
and optional citizenship (automatic acquisition but optional implementation). 

These rights create links with EU administration (bodies and institutions) and/or require and favors
links with the other MS because applicable only if the national moves to another MS or even to a
third State. This is the concept of the « mobile citizen » (or moving citizen).
The rights granted are the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS (now art. 21
TFEU), the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the MS in which the
citizen of another MS resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. (now art. 22
TFEU), the right of protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any MS, on the same
conditions as the nationals of that State. (now art. 23 TFEU), the right to petition the European
Parliament (now art. 24 sub§ 2 TFEU), the right to apply to the Ombudsman (now art. 24 sub§ 3
TFEU).

B/ An incomplete citizenship

We can say «  incomplete  » or «  imperfect  ». citizenship and talk about a «  minimal  » citizenship.
Why? The first answer is in art. 20(2) TFEU«Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be
subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (…) ». According to this
sentence, What is missing?

1/ The absence or insufficiency of some political rights

List of rights non exhaustive. There is Art. 20(2) TFEU « Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights
and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: [...]». And, there is
Art. 25 TFEU: « [...] the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative
procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to
strengthen (= renforcer) or to add to the rights listed in Article 20(2). These provisions shall enter into
force after their approval by the MS in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
». BUT still missing or limited rights, especially political right.

a)Electoral rights (right to vote and right to stand for election)

This right is limited to some elections (EP and municipal). Due to the tie made between the right to
vote and the right to stand for election. So, there is a limited access to some high-level employments.

b) « support » rights / rights to take part to the political activities (= D de participer aux activités
politiques)

There is an absence of EU common rules concerning the political rights to take part in political
activities. Exemple : to join a political party, to create a political party, to have access to some
employments in public services (are often a way to reach national political functions). In
consequences, in some MS, they are prohibited for nationals from another MS. So there is a feeling of
an incomplete citizenship and a feeling of a democratic deficit. 


2 - The absence of identified « duties »

national context: the citizenship is traditionally presented as implying both rights and duties.
Exemple : la Charte des D et devoirs du citoyen fr (2012) dispose qu’ « A la qualité de citoyen fr
s’attachent en outre des D et devoirs particuliers  ». Elle contient le devoir de participer aux jurys
d'assises et à la défense N, de voter, de contribuer aux dépenses de la nation par le paiement
d'impôts et de CS etc.

EU context : the duties have to be provided by the treaties yet they do not mention any EU citizens
duties (=les devoirs doivent ê prévus par les traités, mais ils ne mentionnent aucun devoir des
citoyens de l’UE). European tax ? Taxes are still the competence of the MS and the EU is financed
with the system of « EU's own ressources » so there's no taxe imposed directly on the European
citizens but the Commission in 2018 suggested # taxes. European Council – July 2020 = new tax
based on non-recycled plastic wasted (but paid by the MS).
concerning the CEU, there is Art. 20(2) TFEU: « Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be
subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties » (=Les citoyens de l'Union jouissent des D et sont
soumis aux devoirs prévus par les T). The Preamble of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights say
that « Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the
human community and to future generations ». BUT they have to be « provided for in the treaties ».
Yet, the treaties do not provide for any EU citizens’ duty…What are your duties as citizens of a State?
What could be the EU citizens’ duties?

We can Compare with Fr. Décret n° 2012-127 du 30 janvier 2012 approuvant la Charte des D et
devoirs du citoyen français prévue à l’article 21-24 CC, abstracts: « A la qualité de citoyen fr
s’attachent en outre des D et devoirs particuliers, tels que le D de participer à l’élection des
représentants du peuple et le devoir de concourir à la défense N ou de participer aux jurys d’assises
». « Voter est un, D c’est aussi un devoir civique ». « Chacun a le devoir de contribuer, selon ses
capacités financières, aux dépenses de la Nation par le paiement d’impôts et de CS»

To decide taxes and raise tax revenues = competence of the MS, not the EU. ECSC (European Coal
and Steel Community), there was the « ECSC levy » (= prélèvement CECA) : a tax on coal and steel (=
une taxe sur le charbon et l’acier). BUT = on companies, not individuals. EU’s own resources :
customs resources, own resource accruing from VAT, GNI-based own resources (=ressources
douanières, ressources propres provenant de la TVA, ressources propres basées sur le PIB).

There is a proposals from the Commission in 2018 (COM(2018)325): common corporate tax, green/
environmental tax, financial transaction tax (an enhanced cooperation was authorized in 2013 but
the implementation text is not yet adopted), tax based on non-recycled plastic waste, etc (=Taxe
commune sur les sociétés, taxe verte / environnementale, taxe sur les transactions financières (une
coopération renforcée a été autorisée en 2013 mais le texte d'application n'est pas encore adopté),
taxe basée sur les déchets plastiques non recyclés, etc).

A new tax based on non-recycled plastic waste = a way for EU Citizens to feel more involved in the
EU? = proposal from the Commission (2018) relaunched (=relancée) by the European Council,
17-20 July 2020, in the context of the Recovery Plan for Europe (=Plan de relance pour l’Europe)
European Council 17-21 July 2020 say that «  New Own Resources 145. The Union will over the
coming years work towards reforming the own resources system and introduce new own resources ».
«  146. As a first step, a new own resource will be introduced and apply as of 1 January 2021
composed of a share of revenues from a national contribution calculated on the weight of
nonrecycled plastic packaging waste with a call rate of EUR 0.80 per kilogram with a mechanism to
avoid excessively regressive impact on national contributions  » (= «Nouvelles ressources propres
145. L'Union travaillera au cours des prochaines années à la réforme du système des ressources
propres et à l'introduction de nouvelles ressources propres. 146. Dans un premier temps, une
nouvelle ressource propre sera introduite et s'appliquera à partir du 1er janvier 2021 composée
d'une part des revenus d'une contribution N calculée sur le poids des déchets d'emballages
plastiques non recyclés avec un taux d'appel de 0,80 EUR par kilogramme avec un mécanisme pour
éviter un impact trop régressif sur les contributions nationales). + Proposal for a Council Decision on
the system of Own Resources of the European Union, doc. 10025/20, 29 July 2020. BUT = the tax
will not be paid DIRECTLY by EU citizens!

Reminder. There are 2 lists in the primary law. In the TEU(art 21 to 24 and in the EUCFR (art 39 to
45). + diapo p.4

Session 5 & 6.The right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member State

In 2015, more than 15 million EU citizens were residing or working in another MS. If you take all of
the citizens who decided to move just to visit, to travel for a week, there is more than 1 billion trips
in other EU MS every year for business of tourism. This movement is facilitated by the right to move
and reside freely within the territory of the MS granted to EU citizens.

Introduction

I - The sources of this right

The legal bases of this right is Art 20 TFEU « (…) 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and
be subject to the duties provided for in the treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (a) The right to move
and reside freely within the territory of the MS; (…) » and Art 21 TFEU (specifically dedicated to this
right) «  “1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the
territory of the MS, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the
measures adopted to give them effect. 2. If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this
objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the
Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a
view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 3. For the same purposes as
those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the
Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning
social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European
Parliament ». Also there is Art 45 EUCFR (exactly the same, is not always the same for others rights)
« “Freedom of movement and of residence 1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and
reside freely within the territory of the MS. 2. Freedom of movement and residence may be granted,
in accordance with the Treaties, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a
MS ».

II - The context of this right

The right of the EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS is a part of the
freedom of movement of persons so a part of a broader set of right/conceptun (= ensemble + large de
D/concept). At the origine of European Communities, we create a market with the free movement of
services/capital/persons. So, the right to move and reside freely is part of the free movement of
persons. It is necessary to understand the # and complementarity of 3 sets of rule. Inside EU law,
there is 7 parts that organise the free movement of persons. There is 3 text of law particularly who
concern the internal market law(1), the law of CEU(2) and finally the AFJS law(3). But it has to close
links with the others parts of this freedom , made up of several sets rule. This complexity is du to the
complexity of EU and to the fact that EU was attributif # competences. T Lisbon attribute new
competence. It is necessary to understand the differences and the complementarity of 3 sets of rules :
the internal market law/ the law of the CEU/ the AFSJ (area of freedom, security and justice) law.

At the beginning, in the T establishing EEC in 1957 (T Rome), the free movement of persons was only
a free movement of workers (employed or self employed (=indépendants)) and their family members.
It was an economic organisation. That was link to the internal market law, it’s internal market law
part, an economic approach. It’s still exist today in art 45/49 TFEU the free movement of workers is
still exist. They were the only people concerned at the beginning.

With T Maastricht, CEU was introduced in the treaty and citizens have the right to move and reside
freely in the territory of MS. It’s 21 TFEU. This includes workers, student, retirees and others nationals.
It’s the law of CEU. Concerning workers, it’s about the occupation of activity, the freedom of
occupation of activity. And, for citizens, it’s the right to move and reside freely.

T Amsterdam 1997 led to the integration of Schengen acquis. What does it mean? Several European
states in 1995/1990 ratified the Schengen convention who organize # things and one of them is the
abolition of control at internal borders. That’s why you can go to many EU MS without see were the
borders is because you can cross it without any control. With T Amsterdam, the Schengen rules, that
were outside the EU (Schengen agreements) there were integrated into EU law. Today it’s a part of
AFJS law (it’s also a part of the free movement of persons). It’s 77 TFEU. To make the free movement
of person real, it’s important to have no borders.

To sum up, the free movement of person encompasses (=englobe) the freedom carry on a
professional activity (workers and their family members)= la liberté d'exercer une activité pro. Then
you have the right to move and reside freely(EU citizens and their family members). And there is the
absence of control at the borders = liberté de franchir les frontières intérieures. (EU citizens and third
country nationals and their family members). There are complementary issues. With different legal
bases there is substantive scope, territorial scope and personal scope. This is the free movement of
persons.

I - The personal scope of the right to move and reside freely : beneficiaries

Who are the beneficiaries of this right? The EU citizens and their family members. If we read the
primary law sources, in art 21 TFEU it is said that «Every citizens of the Union(…) » and in 45 EUCFR
too. In secondary law, there is the main text Directive 2004/38/EC adopted by the European
Parlement of 29 of April 2004 and his art 3 said « This directive shall apply to all Union citizen who
move to or reside in a MS other than that of which they are a national, and tot heir family
members(…) ». (= La présente directive s’applique à tous les citoyens de l’Union qui déménagent ou
résident dans un EM autre que celui dont ils sont ressortissants et aux mb de leur famille). There is a
logic of « family reunification ».

A/About the Union citizens

1 - Whatever his/her professional situation is

There was a progressive extension of the personal scope of the right to move and reside freely. In the
EECT in 1957, it’s the right to move and reside freely for workers with an economic approach. This is
a right to move in a MS to work there. The objectif, at that time, was that workers would be able to
work(=L'objectif, à ce moment-là, était que les travailleurs puissent travailler).

Finally, in the 90’s, this right was extended for some categories of non workers by # directives. There
is the Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self
employed persons who have ceased (=cessé) their occupational activity. It was necessary to
recognize this right for people who wanted to stay because they has work for years in a MS. After,
there is a Directive of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students. There is also the
Directive of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence who is a «catch - all directive» and concern all
the other Community migrants and nationals of MS who do not enjoy this right under other
provisions of Community law (= une «directive fourre-tout» et concerne tous les autres migrants
communautaires et ressortissants des EM qui ne bénéficient pas de ce D en vertu d'autres
dispositions du D communautaire).

The 3 directives where adopted at the same time. The conditions imposed on the # categories are not
the same, meaning that the extent, the scope of the right was not exactly the same (=Les conditions
imposées aux catégories sont différentes ce qui signifie que l'étendue du droit n'était pas exactement
la même). For instance, if you want to enjoy your right to move and reside freely within territory of
MS as a student you have to be register as a student in the MS. Why MS impose more condition on
student, community migrants etc than on workers? For economic reasons. A worker will contribute
to economic situation to a MS. It’s to avoid that community migrants come in a MS just to have some
advantages. For instance: medical tourism. So there are # conditions for the # categories of people.

After these 3 directives, it became clear that the regime of this right was complexe.So, it was more
easy to say that all the citizens of EU will have this right. We will recognize this right no more to
several categories but to all citizens of EU. It’s by the T Maastricht. This is the role of 21 TFEU who
recognizes this right to all EU citizens. This leads to the adoption of the Directive of 29 April 2004.
But inside, we still have several # conditions depend on progressional conditions of the citizen.
Anyway, this right is granted to any citizen of EU whatever his professional situation is (worker, not
worker, student or even minor children). For minor children there is JP of ECJ 2003(Garcia Abello)
and 2004(Zhu and Chen).

There is just one exception : the head of state. Governments are not normal citizens when they move
to a MS. They will not be allow to use 21 TFEU, they are not EU citizens, they are MS or
Governments. It’s about interN law, diplomatic relationship law. That’s was the ECJ said in ECJ, 16
oct 2012, Hungary v. Slovakia: because of the diplomatic law its possible to a MS to refuse the head
of another MS to enter in the state.

2 - Provided that (= à condition que) he/she moved or resides in a MS other than that of which he/
she is national

The EU citizens are mobile citizens. They can use this right only when they move in a other country.
They have this right in the territory of another MS. You cannot involve this right if you are a
national of this MS. This right is applicable only to Union citizens having exercised their right to
move and reside freely within the territory of the other EUS MS. It’s called « host MS » (v. National
MS). This condition is mentioned in the Directive of 2004. We can see that in ECJ, 2011, Shirdley
McCarthy. This case say that = the directive 2004/38/CE relating to freedom of movement for persons
concerns the travel or residence of a person in a MS other than that of which he is a national and, a
dual nationality (of 2 EU MS) is not equivalent to the exercise of the right to move and reside
within another MS. (= concerne le voyage ou la résidence d'une P dans un EM autre que celui dont
elle est ressortissante et, une double nationalité (de 2 EM de l'UE) n'équivaut pas à l'exercice du D
de circuler et de séjourner dans un autre EM). The family members cannot have the right to move
and reside freely. In this case, Shirley McCarthy is a national of the UK and an Irish national. She was
born in the UK and has always resided there, without ever having exercised her right to move and
reside freely within the territory of other EU MS. Following her marriage to a Jamaican national, Mrs
McCarthy applied for an Irish passport for the first time and obtained it. She then applied to the
British authorities for a residence permit, as an Irish national wishing to reside in the UK under
European Union law. Her husband applied for a residence document as the spouse of a Union
citizen. Those applications were refused on the ground that Mrs McCarthy could not base her
residence on European Union law and invoke that law to regularise the residence of her spouse,
since she had never exercised her right to move and reside in MS other than the UK. Union citizens
residing in the MS of which they are a national – such as Mrs McCarthy – enjoy an unconditional
right of residence in that State.

The directive 2004/38/EC cannot apply to such persons. See: Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the
ConvEDH precludes (= interdit) a MS from refusing its own nationals the right to enter its territory
and remain there for any reason; that principle also precludes that MS from expelling (= expulser)
its own nationals from its territory or refusing their right to reside in that territory or making such
right conditional. (= interdit à un EM de refuser à ses propres ressortissants le D d'entrer sur son
territoire et d'y rester pour quelque raison que ce soit; ce principe interdit également aux EM
d'expulser leurs propres ressortissants de son territoire ou de refuser leur D de résider sur ce territoire
ou de subordonner ce D à des conditions) .In consequence, the directive 2004/38/CE relating to
freedom of movement for persons concerns the travel or residence of a person in a MS other than that
of which he is a national. = Mrs McCarthy’s husband is not the spouse of a national of a MS who has
exercised her right to freedom of movement, he also cannot benefit from the rights conferred by the
directive. The fact that a Union citizen is a national of more than one MS does not mean that he has
made use of his right of freedom of movement.

It’s the same solution for the derived right to move and reside freely for family members = only if the
Union citizen has exercised his/her right to move and reside freely within the territory of ANOTHER
MS. If citizens have not exercised this right, family members do not have this right. We can see that
in ECJ, 2018, Comman and Others and in ECJ,2018, Banger. «  as regards Article 3(1) of Directive
2004/38, […] it follows from a literal, contextual and teleological interpretation of the provisions of
that directive that Directive 2004/38 governs only the conditions determining whether a Union
citizen can enter and reside in MS other than that of which he is a national and does not confer a
derived right of residence on third-country nationals, who are family members of a Union citizen,
in the MS of which that citizen is a national  » (= il découle d'une interprétation littérale,
contextuelle et téléologique des dispositions de cette directive que la directive ne régit que les
conditions déterminant si un citoyen de l'Union peut entrer et séjourner dans un EM autre que celui
dont il est ressortissant et ne confère pas de D de séjour dérivé aux ressortissants de pays tiers, qui
sont mb de la famille d'un citoyen de l'Union, dans l’EM dont ce citoyen est ressortissant) (Coman
and Others) but also, by analogy where that Union citizen returns, with his family mb in question,
to his MS of origin. (= mais aussi, par analogie, où ce citoyen de l'Union retourne, avec sa famille,
dans son EM d’origine) (ECJ, 12 March 2014, O & B).

B/About the family members

1 - The broad scope (=large portée) of the family members in Directive 2004/38/EC

It’s in Art 3 of this Directive about the beneficiaries « and to their family members who accompany
or join them » (“1. This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member
State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2
of Article 2 who accompany or join them. […] »)This is a general presentation of beneficiaries. In the
Art 2 of the Directive we have a definition of family members «2)"Member of the family »: at) the
spouse; b) the partner with whom (=avec qui) the Union citizen has entered into a registered
partnership, on the basis of the law of a MS, if, in accordance with the law of the host MS, registered
partnerships are equivalent to marriage , and in compliance with the conditions provided for by the
relevant legislation of the host MS (= si, conformément à la L de l’EM d'accueil, les partenariats
enregistrés équivalent au mariage et dans le respect des conditions prévues par la législation
pertinente de l’EL d’accueil); vs)direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or who are
dependents, and direct descendants of the spouse or partner as referred to in point b) ».
There is also Art 3 §2: « 2. Without prejudice to a personal right to free movement and residence of
the person concerned, the host MS shall, in accordance with its national law, promote the entry and
stay of the following persons: a) any other member of the family, whatever his nationality, who is
not covered by the definition in Article 2, point 2), if, in the country of origin, he is dependent or
part of the household (= du ménage) a citizen of the Union who is the main beneficiary of the right
of residence, or when, for serious health reasons, the citizen of the Union must and personally take
care of the member of the family concerned; (=si, dans le pays d'origine, il est à la charge ou fait
partie du ménage d'un citoyen de l'Union qui est le principal bénéficiaire du D de séjour ou lorsque,
pour des raisons de santé graves, le citoyen de l'Union doit et personnellement prendre soin,
s’occuper du mb de la famille concerné); b) the partner with whom the citizen of the Union has a
lasting relationship, duly certified. The host MS undertakes a detailed examination of the personal
situation and gives reasons for any refusal of entry or stay targeting these persons ».

It’s a broad conception of the family because the objective is the family reunification. Why? Because
it would not make sens to grant this right to Union citizens if they have to leave their family. Their
family have to be allowed to go with them. It’s for make the right of CEU more applicable and
concret. It’s also a modern conception of the family. It’s takes into consideration new family
patterns(= modèles familiaux) with various legal status of relationship between adults, children of the
spouse or partner not being the children of the citizens and vice versa.

There are 2 levels in family so 2 levels of right. They have not the same right. There are the very close
member who have more large protection. Art 2 extent the right to the family members who are
mentioned in Art 2. They have the right to move and reside freely just like citizens. (implicitly)
recognises the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS to some of the members
of the family. BUT, it’s a derived right juste because they are members of family. They do not have this
right by themselves. It’s concerning the first circle of family members. It’s # for the 2nd circle(Art
3§2). Art 3 provide only facilitation of the entry and residence not a right to move and reside freely
but a right to have entry and residence facilitated. Art. 3(2)(2), D 2004/38: «  The host MS shall
undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of
entry or residence to these people ».

The family members, in the context of 21 TFEU and the Directive 2004, are Third Country
Nationals(TCN)(=ressortissants de pays tiers). It’s logic: if they are nationals of a MS, they are citizens
of Union. Family members concerned those who cannot ask for the benefit of the right themselves.
They are indirect beneficiaries. The right is not granted to TCN family members who want to move
and reside alone/individually within the territory of another MS. It’s only if this family member join/
accompany an union citizen. Family members enjoy the right if they accompany (so if citizen is not
yet within the territory) or join (so if the citizen is already within the territory of MS).

Directive also introduce innovation of the possible dissociation of the right of the family members.
What it is possible to dissociate?Why? We must think about the retention of the right of residence in
the host MS for the family member, in the event of death or in the event of divorce, annulment of
marriage or termination of registered partnership. If they are nationals of a MS, they are EU citizens
themselves and they are granted the right to move and reside freely as such. THUS Family members
concerned by this right in the D 2004/38/EC are third country nationals, who cannot ask for the
benefit of the right themselves : they are indirect beneficiaries. The right is not granted to TCN family
members who want to move and reside alone/individually within the territory of another MS, family
members enjoy the right to move and reside freely only if they accompany the Union citizen (=the
Union citizen is not yet within the territory of the other MS and the family member accompanies
him/her)or join the Union citizen (= the Union citizen is already within the territory of the other
MS the family member joins him/her).
But, the directive also introduces a major innovation: the possible dissociation of the right of the
family member. Through the retention of the right of residence in the host MS for the family member
in the event of death or departure of the Union citizen. L’art 12 de la directive dispose que «  1. Sans
préjudice du deuxième alinéa, le décès du citoyen de l'Union ou son départ du territoire de l’EM
d'accueil n'affecte pas le D de séjour des membres de sa famille qui ont la nationalité d'un EM 2.
Sans préjudice du deuxième alinéa, le décès du citoyen de l'Union n'entraîne pas la perte du D de
séjour des membres de sa famille qui n'ont pas la nationalité d'un EM et qui résidaient dans l'État
membre d'accueil en tant que membre de sa famille depuis au moins un an avant le décès du
citoyen de l’Union. 3. Le départ du citoyen de l'Union ou son décès n'entraîne pas la perte du droit
de séjour de ses enfants ou du parent qui a effectivement la garde des enfants, quelle que soit leur
nationalité, pour autant que ceux-ci résident dans l'État membre d'accueil et soient inscrits dans un
établissement scolaire pour y suivre un enseignement, jusqu'à la fin de leurs études». It’s also
possible in the event of divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership with
the Union citizen. En effet, l’art 13 de la directive dispose que «  1. Sans préjudice du deuxième
alinéa, le divorce, l'annulation du mariage d'un citoyen de l'Union ou la rupture d'un partenariat
enregistré tel que visé à l'article 2, point 2) b), n'affecte pas le droit de séjour des membres de sa
famille qui ont la nationalité d'un État membre. Avant l'acquisition du droit de séjour permanent, les
intéressés doivent remplir les conditions prévues à l'article 7, paragraphe 1, points a), b), c) ou d). 2.
Sans préjudice du deuxième alinéa, le divorce, l'annulation du mariage ou la rupture d'un
partenariat enregistré tel que visé à l'article 2, point 2 b), n'entraîne pas la perte du droit de séjour
des membres de la famille d'un citoyen de l'Union qui n'ont pas la nationalité d'un État membre ».

2 - The ECJ’s extensive interpretation if the family members concerned

Concerning the personal scope of the right to move of reside freely, the ECJ usually favors a broad
interpretation, interpreting the D 2004/38/EC in the light of fundamental rights as guaranteed in the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the ConvEDH (ECHR). In particular, there is the right to
respect for private and family life (art 8 ConvEDH, art. 7 CDFUE) and the rights of the child (United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989) and/or on the basis of Art. 20
and 21 TFEU (instead of the D 2004/38), the scope of application of which being broader according
to the ECJ! (= et / ou sur la base de l'art. 20 et 21 TFUE (au lieu de la D 2004/38), dont le champ
d'application est plus large selon la CJCE!).

a)the composition of the family

Concerning the spouse, he has the right to move and reside freely and in old case it was underline
that the spouse is only the married person. But, the ECJ case law accepted that it concerns any
marriage, whatever when and where the marriage took place (CJCE 25 juillet 2008, Metock)so even
if the marriage was celebrated in a third country or after the move. ECJ is very flexible. The ECJ also
accepted that it is applicable for same-sex marriage(ECJ, 5 June 2018, Coman e.a). Concerning the
spouse, it’s only for married persons. For the others, there is 2 cases concerning the “partner” . En
effet on a Art 2§2 directive « 2) «membre de la famille»:  b) le partenaire avec lequel le citoyen de
l'Union a contracté un partenariat enregistré, sur la base de la législation d'un État membre, si,
conformément à la législation de l'État membre d'accueil, les partenariats enregistrés sont équivalents
au mariage, et dans le respect des conditions prévues par la législation pertinente de l'État membre
d’accueil ». Puis on a art 3§2 directive « 2. Sans préjudice d'un droit personnel à la libre circulation
et au séjour de l'intéressé, l'État membre d'accueil favorise, conformément à sa législation nationale,
l'entrée et le séjour des personnes suivantes: b) le partenaire avec lequel le citoyen de l'Union a une
relation durable, dûment attestée  ». Art 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning
that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a MS
whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits
from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place […].
And, it’s including a marriage between persons of the same sex.
The court also had to explain what «  direct descendant  » mean. Only the direct descendant are
concerned. In ECJ, 26 March 2019,S.M, ECJ give clarification. 2 french nationals were legal guardian
of a child in the context of the procedure named « kafala » (= procedure of guardianship, without the
implications of an adoption because creates no parentage link). These 2 French nationals were the
legal guardian of the child without the implication of an adoption. ECJ said this child is not a direct
descendant because is not really an adoption. This child is not in the first circle. But the ECJ agreed
for the qualification of family member according to Art 3§2 so the MS must facilitate the entry of this
child. This child is not a “direct descendant” under article 2§2 c) Directive 2004/38 so not a member
of the family of a citizen of the “first circle”. But ECJ said it’s OK for being a “family member” of the
EU citizen whose entry and residence should be facilitated by the host MS. It’s art. 3§2. The ECJ
explain that the concept of dependent in CJCE, 19 October 2004 , Zhu an Chen. Concerning the
ascendant, there is CJCE, 9 janvier 2007. These cases are not applicable for the parent of a minor
child being the Union citizen.

Concerning the “dependent” descendants and ascendants, for ascendants there is CJCE, 2007, Jia
« 37. In order to determine whether the relatives in the ascending line of the spouse of a Community
national are dependent on the latter, the host MS must assess whether, having regard to their financial
and social conditions, they are not in a position to support themselves. (=Afin de déterminer si les
membres de la famille ascendante du conjoint d'un ressortissant communautaire sont à la charge de
ce dernier, l’EM d'accueil doit apprécier si, compte tenu de leurs conditions financières et sociales,
ils ne sont pas en mesure de subvenir à leurs besoins). The need for material support (= soutient
matériel) must exist in the State of origin of those relatives or the State when they came at the time
when they apply to join the Community national (= doit exister dans l’État d’origine de ces parents ou
dans l’État au moment où ils sont arrivés au moment où ils demandent à rejoindre le ressortissant
communautaire) ». For descendants, there is CJCE, 19 octobre 2004, Zhu et Chen« 43. […] the status
of 'dependent' member of the family of a holder of a right of residence is the result of a factual
situation characterised by the fact that material support for the family member is provided by the
holder of the right of residence (see, to that effect, in relation to Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68,
Case 316/85 Lebon [1987] ECR 2811, paragraphs 20 to 22) ». These case are not inapplicable for the
parent of a minor child being the Union citizen. le statut de membre `` à charge '' de la famille d'un
titulaire d'un droit de séjour résulte d'une situation de fait caractérisée par le fait que le soutien
matériel du membre de la famille est assuré par le titulaire du droit de séjour

Citizen of EU are mobile citizen. They have the right to move and reside freely by texts and ECJ case
law. According to the directive of 2004, there is a broad scope of the meaning of CEU and the family
members. So this right is granted to citizens and also to family members. There is 2 categories of
family members. The concept of family member is an evolutive concept. ECJ case law also led to a
broading interpretation of the family members, the composition of the family member concerning the
term « spouse » (= conjoint), « ascendant » etc. There is large conception.

b)the condition for family members who accompany or join them EU citizens

On the condition accompany on join we can find something in the ECJ join. First, a family member
be allowed to move only if he/she accompanies or join a EU citizen. Concerning « join » (citizen is
already in the MS) there is a case : CJCE , 25 July 2008, Metock who said « irrespective [..] of how
the national of a non-member country entered the host MS  » (= indépendamment de [..] de la
manière dont le ressortissant d'un pays tiers est entré dans l’EM d’accueil). It’s mean, even if the
family member is in the state illegally this person we’ll be protecting by the right to reside and move
freely, even if the family member entered the MS (the EU) illegally. It’s according to the right to
respect for private and family life (art. 7 EUCFR & art. 8 EConvHR). But there is a condition in such
case the right to reside freely is limited to the territory of the MS where the EU citizen reside (not the
territory of all/other MS).
The FM can also accompany a citizen (citizen isn’t already in the MS). They will move to another MS.
There is also a broading interpretation of the ECJ on this aspect especially concerning a specific
situation were EU citizen is a minor child. The condition to accompany a EU citizen applied even if
this citizen is a minor child and the parents a third country national. The parent is not a “dependent
ascendant” but he/she “accompanies” the EU citizen, who is dependent(ECJ, 19 oct 2004, Zhu and
Chen). In such case is not the family member who is dependent but the citizen who is dependent.
There is a situation of dependency of the EU citizen.

Objective is that the child who is a citizen must not be compelled (=contraint) to leave the territory of
the EU because he’s dependent (= un citoyen ne doit pas ê contraint de quitter le territoire de l’UE
parce qu’il est dépendant). According to the ECJ, the CEU must ensure that a EU citizen must be
allowed to use his right (=la CEU doit veiller à ce qu'un citoyen de l'UE soit autorisé à exercer son
D). Is to avoid that the child must no be able to leave a territory of the EU so ECJ recognize this. The
consequence is that the parent of the dependent EU citizen is granted the right to reside with the
child for an indefinite period in the name of the «  useful effect  » of the right of the EU citizen
himself/herself. The parents as to have a sufficient ressources for this minor. In fact, there is
conditions. The EU citizen must be covered by appropriate sickness insurance (=assurance maladie)
and be in the care of a parent who is a third national country having sufficient ressources for that
minor not to become a burden on the public finances (= une charge pour les finances publiques) of
the host MS. When the child is old enough (not minor anymore) there si no dependancies.

ECJ, 2004, Zhu and Chen said that « 45. […] a refusal to allow the parent, whether a national of a
MS or a national of a non member country, who is the carer of a child to whom Article 18 EC [now
art. 21 TFEU] and Directive 90/364 grant a right of residence, to reside with that child in the host MS
would deprive the child's right of residence of any useful effect. It is clear that enjoyment by a young
child of a right of residence necessarily implies that the child is entitled to be accompanied by the
person who is his or her primary carer and accordingly that the carer must be in a position to reside
with the child in the host MS for the duration of such residence » (= un refus d'admettre le parent,
qu'il soit ressortissant d'un EM ou d’un pays tiers, qui a la charge d'un enfant dont l'article 18 CE
(devenu art. 21 TFUE) et la directive de 2004 accordent un D de séjour, le fait de résider avec cet
enfant dans l’EM d'accueil priverait le D de séjour de l'enfant de tout effet utile. Il est clair que la
jouissance par un jeune enfant d'un D de séjour implique nécessairement que l'enfant a le D d'ê
accompagné par la P qui en est le principal RP et, par conséquent, que celui-ci doit ê en mesure de
résider avec l’enfant ». And, «  47. Article 18 EC [now 21 TFEU] and Directive 90/364 confer on a
young minor who is a national of a MS, is covered by appropriate sickness insurance and is in the
care of a parent who is a third country national having sufficient resources for that minor not to
become a burden on the public finances of the host MS, a right to reside for an indefinite period in
that State. In such circumstances, those same provisions allow a parent who is that minor's primary
carer to reside with the child in the host MS  » (= L'article 18 CE [devenu 21 TFUE] et la directive
90/364 confèrent à un jeune mineur ressortissant d’un EM, couvert par une assurance maladie
appropriée et confié à un parent ressortissant d'un pays tiers des ressources suffisantes pour que ce
mineur ne devienne pas une charge pour les finances publiques de l’EM d'accueil, un D de résider
pour une durée indéterminée dans cet État. Dans de telles circonstances, ces mêmes dispositions
permettent à un parent qui est le principal RP de ce mineur de résider avec l'enfant dans l’EM
d'accueil »

ECJ,8 may 2018, K.A give some element to describe a relationship of dependance, who is necessary.
In fact, there is a condition : assessment (=évaluation) of the relationship of dependency. This case
said « 76 […] Art 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that: - where the Union citizen is a minor,
the assessment of the existence of such a relationship of dependency must be based on
consideration, in the best interests of the child, of all the specific circumstances, including the age of
the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties to each of
his parents (=l'étendue de ses liens affectifs avec chacun de ses parents), and the risks which
separation from the third-country national parent might entail for that child’s equilibrium. The
existence of a family link with that third-country national, whether natural or legal, is not
sufficient, and cohabitation with that third-country national is not necessary, in order to establish
such a relationship of dependency ». This is a clarification of elements to be taken into consideration
to assess the relationship of dependancy. There is (mostly) the best interest for the child.

Concerning the burden of the proof there is ECJ, 10 may 2017, Chavez-Vilchez and Others. Its for
the parents. And, the MS authorities have an O to undertake the necessaries inquiries (=
d'entreprendre les enquêtes nécessaires) to assess the situation on the basis of the evidence provided
by the third country N. This case said that «  76 […] it is, as a general rule, for the third-country
national parent to provide evidence to prove that he or she has a right of residence under Article 20
TFEU, in particular evidence that, if residence were to be refused, the child would be obliged to
leave the territory of the European Union, the fact remains that (= il n’en demeure pas moins que) ,
when undertaking the assessment of the conditions required in order for the third-country national to
be able to qualify for such a right of residence, […]  ». And, «  77 […], the application of such
national legislation on the burden of proof does not relieve the authorities of the MS concerned of
the obligation to undertake, on the basis of the evidence provided by the third-country national, the
necessary inquiries to determine where the parent who is a national of that MS resides and to
examine, first, whether that parent is, or is not, actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility
for the primary day-to-day care of the child, and, second, whether there is, or is not, such a
relationship of dependency between the child and the third-country national parent that a decision to
refuse the right of residence to the latter would deprive the child of the genuine enjoyment of the
substance of the rights attached to his or her status as a Union citizen by obliging the child to leave
the territory of the European Union, as a whole  ». (=l'application d'une telle législation N sur la
charge de la preuve ne dispense pas les autorités de l’EM concerné de l'O d'entreprendre, sur la
base des preuves fournies par le ressortissant du pays tiers, les enquêtes visant à dtr le lieu de
résidence du parent ressortissant de cet EM et à examiner, en premier lieu, si ce parent est ou n'est
pas réellement en mesure et disposé à assumer seul la RP des soins quotidiens primaires de l'enfant,
et, deuxièmement, s'il existe ou non un tel lien de dépendance entre l'enfant et le parent
ressortissant de pays tiers qu'une décision de refuser le D de séjour à ce dernier priverait l'enfant
de la jouissance réelle de la substance des D attachés à son statut de citoyen de l'Union en
obligeant l'enfant à quitter le territoire de l’UE dans son ensemble). So, the burden of proof is for
the parent/family member. The MS authorities have the obligation to undertake, on the basis of the
evidence provided by the third country national, the necessary inquiries to assess the situation.

Then the ECJ extended the scope of this right. And all things we seen are accepted by court even if it
is a purely internal situation. Is ECJ, 2011, Ruiz Zambrano. In this case is was about two Colombian
nationals residing in Belgium, second and third children. Born in Belgium so there is Belgium
nationality and citizens of the EU. M. Ruiz Zambrano argues that he has a right to reside in Belgium,
since he is the ascendant of his young children who are citizens of the EU (he invokes the Zhu and
Chen case, 2004). ECJ applying the same solution. The ECJ extends his solution to purely internal
situation. The ECJ recognize first a right of residence. Here EU citizen is a minor child so the parent
have to have the right. But a work permit has to be delivered to the parent. Extended the right : the
MS have to delivered a work permit. « 42 […] Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which
have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the
rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union […]  » (= 20 TFUE s'oppose aux
mesures N qui ont pour effet de priver les citoyens de l'Union de la jouissance effective de la
substance des D conférés en vertu de leur qualité de citoyens de l'Union). «  43 A refusal to grant a
right of residence to a third country national with dependent minor children in the MS where those
children are nationals and reside, and also a refusal to grant such a person a work permit, has such
an effect ». And, « 44 It must be assumed that such a refusal would lead to a situation where those
children, citizens of the Union, would have to leave the territory of the Union in order to accompany
their parents. Similarly, if a work permit were not granted to such a person, he would risk not having
sufficient resources to provide for himself and his family, which would also result in the children,
citizens of the Union, having to leave the territory of the Union. In those circumstances, those
citizens of the Union would, in fact, be unable to exercise the substance of the rights conferred on
them by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union  » (= Il faut partir du principe qu'un tel refus
conduirait à une situation où ces enfants, citoyens de l'Union, devraient quitter le territoire de
l'Union pour accompagner leurs parents. De même, si un permis de T n'était pas accordé à une telle
P, elle risquerait de ne pas disposer de ressources suffisantes pour subvenir à ses besoins et à ceux
de sa famille, ce qui conduirait également les enfants, citoyens de l'Union, à quitter le territoire de
l'Union. Dans ces conditions, ces citoyens de l'Union ne seraient, en effet, pas en mesure d'exercer
la substance des D qui leur sont conférés en vertu de leur qualité de citoyens de l’Union).

The 2nd element is important : Because its a purely internal situation, the directive of 2004 (give
clarification of the right)and article 21 TFEU both about the right to move and side freely were not
relevant. The ECJ use a larger text = art 20 TFEU. The ECJ could not use the right to move and reside
freely so she use article 20 itself concerning the CEU. The idea is to protect the right of the citizen of
EU. ECJ have to use another legal base. The idea is that the ECJ recognize a right of residence and
recognize also that the parent be granted to have a work permit. Because, without this, they have not
sufficient ressources the minor. If they are not able to be allowed to work this condition will never be
completed.

This solution is applicable also even if one parent is a EU citizen but the other one is a third
country national. That what we can read in ECJ, 2017, Chavez Vilchez and Others, who said that
« 72 […] Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of assessing whether a
child who is a Union citizen would be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a
whole and thereby deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on
him by that article if the child’s third-country national parent were refused a right of residence in the
MS concerned, the fact that the other parent, who is a Union citizen, is actually able and willing to
assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is a relevant factor, but it is
not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there is not, between the third-country
national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would indeed be so
compelled were there to be such a refusal of a right of residence. […] ». (= le fait que l'autre parent,
qui est citoyen de l'Union, soit effectivement capable et disposé à assumer seul la RP de la garde
quotidienne primaire de l'enfant est un facteur pertinent, mais ce n'est pas en soi un motif suffisant
pour la conclusion selon laquelle il n’existe pas, entre le parent ressortissant de pays tiers et
l’enfant, une telle relation de dépendance que l’enfant serait en effet si contraint s’il y avait un tel
refus de D de séjour ».

And, the solution is also applicable even is there is criminal conviction of the child’s parent(=
condamnation pénale du parent de l’enfant). This criminal conviction is not enough to refuse the
right of residence. Its ECJ, 2016, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. CS(expulsion
measure will be contrary to Art. 20, unless “in exceptional circumstances”). The ECJ is very flexible
to protect is right. Is the same solution in case of criminal record (antécédents pénaux), we can see
that with ECJ, 2016, Alfredo Rendón Marín v. Administración del Estado. And, there is the same
position even if the parent is the subject of a ban on entering (= interdiction d’entrer) (ECJ, 8 May
2018, K.A. e. a). The enjoyment of the rights conferred should not be hindered (=Il ne faut pas
entraver la jouissance des D conférés). Also, this solution is the same for an adult dependent of
another adult, but only in « exceptional cases ». We can see that in ECJ, 8 May 2018, K.A. e. a, who
said « 76 […] Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that: - where the Union citizen is an
adult, a relationship of dependency, capable of justifying the grant to the third-country national
concerned of a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU, is conceivable only in exceptional
cases, where, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, any form of separation of the individual
concerned from the member of his family on whom he is dependent is not possible » (= L'article 20
TFUE doit ê interprété en ce sens que: lorsque le citoyen de l'Union est majeur, un lien de
dépendance, susceptible de justifier l'octroi au ressortissant de pays tiers concerné d'un D de séjour
dérivé au titre de l'article 20 TFUE, n'est concevable que dans des cas exceptionnels, où, à la lumière
de toutes les circonstances pertinentes, toute forme de séparation de l'individu concerné du membre
de sa famille dont il dépend n'est pas possible).

The broad interpretation led to a extension of the personal scope. It’s because the ECJ applied the
right also in purely internal situation and this case law favor of course EU citizen and also FM.
Concerning this right, the FM we mention are necessarily third country national so it’s in favor of
third country nationals. This is an extensive approach of the beneficiaries of this right. So the ECJ
have an important role in this evolution. There is several cases.

II - The substantive scope of the right to move and reside freely : which rights?

What does this right imply? Which content? Which rights? Today we can consider that in the Right to
MRF there is the right of entry and the right of residence but there are also other elements right/
elements = is the right to « non discriminatory living conditions ».

A/ The right of entry and the right of residence

The objective is to favor the right of entry/residence of EU citizens. There is a logical of freedom. But
there is restrictions.

1 - The right of exit and entry

The right of entry it’s also the right of exit. That what we have is the directive of 2004(art 4/5). In this
directive there is distinction between right of entry/exit. If you are citizen of EU you want to go to
another MS but you have first to exit your MS. The right of entry can only exist if there is a right to
exit. The right of exit is in art 4 directive of 2004. So, the Directive 2004/38/EC, in Art 4, give the
right of exit. And, in Art 5, give the right of entry. What conditions and formalities for EU citizens?
What obligations for MS?

a)the right to exit

Art 4 of the directive 2004 says that «  1. Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents
applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and
their family members who are not nationals of a MS and who hold a valid passport shall have the
right to leave the territory of a MS to travel to another MS. 2. No exit visa or equivalent formality
may be imposed on the persons to whom paragraph 1 applies. » (= 1. Sans préjudice des dispositions
relatives aux docs de voyage applicables aux contrôles nationaux aux frontières, tous les citoyens de
l'Union titulaires d'une carte d'identité ou d'un passeport en cours de validité et les membres de
leur famille qui ne sont pas ressortissants d'un EM et qui sont titulaires d'un passeport en cours de
validité ont le D de quitter le territoire d'un EM pour se rendre dans un autre EM. 2. Aucun visa de
sortie ou formalité équivalente ne peut ê imposé aux P auxquelles s'applique le §1).

We are free, we don’t have to ask an autorisation to leave our country. In European Human Right
conception, there is the right to leave a country. So the right of exit is of course recognize. We do not
need any visa. The principle is freedom. But condition are not the same for EU citizen and for FM.
For EU what is required is to have value identity card or passport and for FM there is a valid passport.
The citizen can have only an identity card. So, no exit visa or equivalent is required! There is
consequences for MS : normative action to “issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card
or passport stating their nationality” (= Il y a des csq pour les EM: une action normative pour
«délivrer à leurs propres ressortissants et renouveler une carte d'identité ou un passeport attestant
leur nationalité »).
b) the right to entry

Concerning the right to entry, there is Art 5 of the directive en 2004/38/EC. « 1. Without prejudice
to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, MS shall grant Union
citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport and shall grant family
members who are not nationals of a MS leave to enter their territory with a valid passport. No entry
visa or equivalent formality may be imposed on Union citizens. 2. Family members who are not
nationals of a MS shall only be required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. […] 5. The MS may require the person concerned
to report his/her presence within its territory within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of
time. Failure to comply with this requirement may make the person concerned liable to
proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions ». (= 2. Les membres de la famille qui ne sont pas
ressortissants d'un EM ne sont tenus d'avoir un visa d'entrée que conformément au règlement (CE) n °
539/2001 ou, le cas échéant, au droit national. 5. L’EM peut demander à la P concernée de signaler
sa présence sur son territoire dans un délai raisonnable et non discriminatoire. Le non-respect de
cette exigence peut rendre l'intéressé passible de sanctions proportionnées et non discriminatoires ».

That also why you do not feel we have the right to entry. The condition are the same. Citizen have to
have a identity card or passport. Visa is not required. It’s a prohibition to a MS to impose a document
like a visa or equivalent to citizen to entry. For FM there is the condition of valid passport and, it
depend of the country, it’s possible that there is the condition of an entry visa. Also, for FM, there is
a possible obligation to report one’s presence within the territory (=signaler sa présence sur le
territoire) where there is a reasonable time and proportionate sanction. Is not possible to take a
expulsion decision just on this. bases But, there is no obligation to give information on the goal and
conditions of the stay: it’s prohibited by ECJ, 30 May 1991, Commission v. Netherlands. The MS
cannot impose the EU citizen to give this information. You don’t have to explain why you here and in
which conditions you will stay in this territory.

The csq for MS are numerous. First, normative or operational action to facilitate the entry: grant
family members every facility to obtain the necessary visas [when is necessary]. Such visas shall be
issued free of charge (= gratuitement) as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated
procedure (=procédure accélérée). The MS must not place an entry or exit stamp (=cachet) in the
passport of family members who are not nationals of a Member State provided that they present the
residence card and must give Union citizens or their family members who do not have the necessary
travel documents every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them
brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that
they are covered by the right of free movement and residence (= Les EM ne doivent pas apposer de
cachet d'entrée ou de sortie sur le passeport des membres de la famille qui ne sont pas ressortissants
d'un EM, à condition qu'ils présentent la carte de séjour, et doivent donner aux citoyens de l'Union
ou aux membres de leur famille qui ne disposent pas des doc de voyage toutes les possibilités
raisonnables d'obtenir les doc nécessaires ou de se les faire apporter dans un délai raisonnable ou de
corroborer ou de prouver par d'autres moyens qu'ils sont couverts par le droit de libre circulation et
de séjour).

2 - The right of residence

What does it mean? Ar you really free to reside in a territory just because you are a citizen of EU? Yes
and no. It depend of the situation. There are 3 cases. There are sometime conditions. This is not an
absolute right. We have the directive of 2004 who distinguish between 3 cases. First there is the right
of residence for up to 3 months(art 6 directive), the residence of more than 3 months(art 7
directive) and the permanent residence(art 16 directive).

Right of residence for up to three months (art. 6 D 2004/38)

In the first case there is no condition or formalities even if a identity card or valid passport. There is
no specific condition. But for FM, there is the condition of valid passport and to accompanies/join a
EU citizen. We consider that up to 3 month, this an absolute right, the principle is freedom if you are
a citizen of EU. This is the most absolute concretization of the mouvement of person. Art 16 «  1.
Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another MS for a period of up to
three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid
identity card or passport. 2. The provisions of §1 shall also apply to family members in possession of
a valid passport who are not nationals of a MS, accompanying or joining the Union citizen. »

Right of residence for more than three months (1) (art. 7 D 2004/38)

Then, if you want to stay for more than 3 months is #. The conditions are not the same depending of
what kind of EU citizen you are. There is # categories of EU citizen. If you are a worker (employed
person or self employed person) there is no condition, this is again an absolute right of residence.
This is du to the history of the European construction and the history of the right to move and reside
freely. It was only a right for workers.

Concerning inactive people (themselves and their FM), there is 2 conditions : they have to prove they
have sufficient ressources for them and their FM and comprehensive (=complète) sickness insurance
cover in the host MS.

The third category of EU citizen is students or vocational trainee (=stagiaire professionnel). There is
conditions too : sufficient resources for themselves and their FM, comprehensive sickness insurance
cover in the host MS and enrolled (=inscrit) at a private or public establishment. So, there is 3
conditions.

Finally, about FM there are also 2 conditions : accompanies/join EU citizen and this citizen has to be
an EU citizen satisfies the conditions referred to his categories.

Why there absolute right for workers but no for others categories? What is the objective? Workers
contribute to economy. So there is economics reasons. More precisely its to ensure to not be a
burden for the host MS, cost to much to the state. The MS don’t have to be the victim of the right to
move and reside freely and have too much economics effects. Its for social reasons : in some MS,
the life in easier, the economy is in better situation and the social benefits are better. The objective
is not to create a competition between MS. A MS cannot be less attractive. art. 7§1 b): «  not to
become a burden on the social assistance system of the host MS during their period of residence ».

Which amount is « sufficient resources »? How much is it? What could be taken into account? The pb
is that it depend of the # MS, the level of life is #. So sufficient ressources have # meaning in # MS.
So we take into account minimum wage of the MS and there is the art 8 of directive. He say there is
no fix amount but for instance the MS have to take into account the personnel situation of the person
concerned. The leads that in a MS if someone do not have sufficient ressources is possible to be
eligible for social assistant. The amount of sufficient ressource do not have to be huge. The MS
cannot ask more than he ask to his own citizens. art. 8§4 : "4. MS may not lay down a fixed amount
which they regard as "sufficient resources" but they must take into account the personal situation of
the person concerned. In all cases this amount shall not be higher than the threshold below(=seuil
inférieur) which nationals of the host MS become eligible for social assistance, or, where this
criterion is not applicable, higher than the minimum social security pension paid by the host MS». (=
4. Les EM ne peuvent pas fixer le montant des ressources qu'ils considèrent comme suffisantes,
mais ils doivent tenir compte de la situation perso de la P concernée. Dans tous les cas, ce montant
n'est pas supérieur au niveau en dessous duquel les ressortissants de l'État d'accueil peuvent
bénéficier d'une assistance sociale ni, lorsque ce critère ne peut s'appliquer, supérieur à la pension
minimale de sécurité sociale versée par l’EM d’accueil).
Which source of ressources? We have element of clarification on ECJ case law, 2 cases gives
elements. : ECJ, 2019, Ermira Bajratani and in ECJ, 2020, Ciduad Real. The first one (Ermira
Bajratani) said that «  even if the resources of a Union citizen minor are derived from income
obtained from the unlawful employment of his father, a third-country national without a residence
card and a work permit » (= Même si les ressources d'un citoyen de l'Union mineur proviennent de
revenus provenant de l'emploi illégal de son père, ressortissant d'un pays tiers sans carte de séjour et
permis de travail). The 2nd one (Ciudad Real) said that «  even if the resources are the ones of the
spouse, who is a third-country national and who thus applies for family reunification » (= même si les
ressources sont celles du conjoint, qui est ressortissant d'un pays tiers et qui demande donc le
regroupement familial) = situation of economic dependency (case where the Union citizen did not
exercised her right to move and reside freely).

Then, what are the consequences? Which consequence of this condition of sufficient resources?What
does it mean concretely ? For more than 3 month a resident permit is necessary. To have this right of
resident is necessary to have sufficient resources. If you don’t have the conditions, you will not be
authorize to enter but if you are already in the other MS and you were not a job seeker (= tu n’y es
pas aller dans le but de trouver un job mais juste pour ne pas rester au delà de 3 mois et finalement
tu restes plus longtemps )= you have to proove sufficient ressources. If you are not in conditions, the
MS can take a decision of expulsion. But is not the automatic consequence of union citizen’s of his
or her family member recourse to the social assistance system of the host MS. An expulsion measure
may in no case be adopted against union citizens of their family member if the union citizens are
workers or self employed persons.

Which consequence of this condition of sufficient resources?What does it mean concretely ?There is
an answer. Art. 14§1:« Union citizens and their family members shall have the right of residence […]
as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host
MS  ». If not = possible expulsion measure BUT there are guarantees. There are guarantees in art
14§3/4« 3. An expulsion measure shall not be the automatic consequence of a Union citizen's or his
or her family member's recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State » (= Une
mesure d'expulsion n'est pas la conséquence automatique du recours d'un citoyen de l'Union ou
d'un membre de sa famille au système d'assistance sociale de l'État membre d’accueil) And, «  4.
[…] an expulsion measure may in no case be adopted against Union citizens or their family members
if: (a) the Union citizens are workers or self-employed persons, or (b) the Union citizens entered the
territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment ».

Also, there is administrative formalities. What are the administrative formalities for more than 3
month? There is a O to have an registration certificate and the host MS may require the union citizen
to register with the relavant authorities. For EU citizens, there is art 8 : the host MS may require
Union citizens to register with the relevant authorities and, a registration certificate shall be issued
immediately. For FM they have to apply for a residence card(art 9) (= ils doivent demander une carte
de séjour).

Right of permanent residence (1) (art. 16 D 2004/38)

Finally for EU citizen for permanent residence, this right of permanent residence is quite new. There
is no more condition of resources. If we read art 16, there is no condition except the continuous
period of 5 years. What does it means? Art 16 explain in is point 3 and 4. « 1. Union citizens who
have resided legally for a continuous period of five years in the host MS shall have the right of
permanent residence there 2. […] also to family members who are not nationals of a MS and have
legally resided with the Union citizen in the host MS for a continuous period of five years ». So , we
have a novelty from Directive 2004/38/EC : no (more) conditions on activity, resources or sickness
insurance to be fulfilled(= devant ê remplies).
what does « continuous period of five years » mean? The answer is in art 16, §3 §4 who say : « 3.
Continuity of residence shall not be affected by temporary absences not exceeding a total of six
months a year, or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service, or by one
absence of a maximum of twelve consecutive months for important reasons such as pregnancy and
childbirth, serious illness, study or vocational training, or a posting in another MS or a third
country  ». And, «  4. Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through
absence from the host MS for a period exceeding two consecutive years ». (= 3. La continuité de la
résidence n'est pas affectée par des absences temporaires ne dépassant pas un total de 6 mois par an,
ou par des absences d'une durée + longue pour le service militaire obligatoire, ou par une absence
maximale de 12 mois consécutifs pour des raisons importantes telles que grossesse et accouchement,
maladie grave, études ou formation pro, ou détachement dans un autre EM ou dans un pays tiers ».
Et, «4. Une fois acquis, le D de séjour permanent n'est perdu qu'en cas d'absence dans l’EM
d'accueil pendant une période supérieure à 2 années consécutives). So you can lose this right of
permanent residence. You have to remain or you can lose your right if your absent for more than 2
years.

There is the Q about proof. This this the art 21 of the directive. It depend of the MS.«  For the
purposes of this Directive, continuity of residence may be attested by any means of proof in use in
the host MS. Continuity of residence is broken by any expulsion decision duly enforced against the
person concerned» (= Aux fins de la présente directive, la continuité de la résidence peut ê attestée,
prouvée par tout moyen de preuve en usage dans l'État membre d'accueil. La continuité de résidence
est rompue par toute décision d'expulsion dûment exécutée c/ l’intéressé).

There is administratives formalities when you have the right of permanent residence in art 19/20 and
it can depend on the # MS. For Union citizens (art. 19) : document certifying permanent residence ;
after application ; issued by MS authorities ; shall be issued as soon as possible. For FM who are not
nationals of a MS (art. 20) : permanent residence card ; to be requested before expiration of the
residence card (who is shorter), renewable automatically every 10years.

There is a new format of resident card and identity card with a facial image and two fingerprints its to
make the more protective (Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 of the EP and of the Council of 20 June 2019
OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 67). It will be delivered from 2 August 2021.

3 - The restrictions on these rights

The principal objective is freedom. But its possible for the MS to limit this right, to impose restriction.
But, the limitation is very limited. The restrictions is when MS authorities decided to refuse the entry
about a decision of expulsion. There is the grounds of public policy (=OP), public security or public
health. Its so called « policy reservation » (= réserve d’OP). Its limited to few situations. To restrict
this right of residence there is condition, the 3 grounds. And ECJ ,1977, Bouchereau (now is in art
27§2 Directive 2004) said that this restriction is personal only in case of personal conduct of the
individual concerned a genuine, present and sufficiently serious treat affection one of the
fundamental interest of society. So, it can’t be collective restriction. And, an exclusion decision
cannot be take if if an administrative document is missing. L’ar 27 directive dispose que «  1. Sous
réserve des dispositions du présent chapitre, les EM peuvent restreindre la liberté de circulation et de
séjour d'un citoyen de l'Union ou d'un membre de sa famille, quelle que soit sa nationalité, pour
des raisons d'ordre public, de sécurité publique ou de santé publique. Ces raisons ne peuvent ê
invoquées à des fins économiques. 2. Les mesures d'ordre public ou de sécurité publique doivent
respecter le principe de proportionnalité et ê fondées exclusivement sur le comportement personnel
de l'individu concerné. L'existence de condamnations pénales antérieures ne peut à elle seule
motiver de telles mesures. Le comportement de la P concernée doit représenter une menace réelle,
actuelle et suffisamment grave pour un intérêt fonda de la S. Des justifications non directement
liées au cas individuel concerné ou tenant à des raisons de prévention générale ne peuvent ê
retenues ».

For the condition of a « personal conduct of the individual concerned [that] represent[s] a genuine,
present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society  » (=
comportement personnel de l'individu concerné [qui] […] représente [s] une menace réelle, présente
et suffisamment grave affectant l'un des intérêts fondamentaux de la société) we have ECJ,1976,
Royer «  Le simple non-respect par un ressortissant d’un EM des formalités relatives à l'entrée, à la
circulation et au séjour des étrangers n'est pas de nature à constituer en soi un comportement
menaçant l'ordre public et la sécurité publique et ne peut donc, à lui seul, justifier mesure ordonnant
l'expulsion ou l'emprisonnement temporaire à cette fin »Also, we have ECJ, 2018, K (1 case) and H.F
(1 case)«  […] the fact that a European Union citizen or a third-country national family member of
such a citizen, who applies for a right of residence in the territory of a MS, has been the subject, in
the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status […] does not enable the competent
authorities of that MS to consider automatically that the mere (=simple) presence of that individual
in its territory constitutes, whether or not there is any risk of re-offending, a genuine (=véritable),
present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, capable
of justifying the adoption of measures on grounds of public policy or public security. The finding
that there is such a threat must be based on an assessment, by the competent authorities of the host
MS, of the personal conduct of the individual concerned, taking into consideration the findings of
fact in the decision to exclude that individual from refugee status (= en tenant compte des
conclusions de fait dans la décision d'exclure cette personne du statut de réfugié) and the factors on
which that decision is based, particularly the nature and gravity of the crimes or acts that he is
alleged to have committed, the degree of his individual involvement in them, whether there are any
grounds for excluding criminal liability, and whether or not he has been convicted. That overall
assessment must also take account of the time that has elapsed since the date when the crimes or
acts were allegedly committed and the subsequent conduct of that individual, particularly in relation
to whether that conduct reveals the persistence in him of a disposition hostile to the fundamental
values enshrined in Art 2 and 3 TEU, capable of disturbing the peace of mind and physical security of
the population. The mere fact that the past conduct of that individual took place in a specific
historical and social context in his country of origin, which is not liable to recur in the host
Member State, does not preclude such a finding » (= Le simple fait que le comportement passé de
cet individu se soit déroulé dans un contexte historique et social spécifique de son pays d'origine,
qui n'est pas susceptible de se reproduire dans l'État membre d'accueil, ne s'oppose pas à une telle
constatation).

We can take illustration of the 3 grounds which allow these rights to be restricted. For the public
policy, there is ECJ, 2018, K. & H.F. (C-331/16 & C-166/16) « il faut souligner que les crimes et actes
qui font l'objet de l'article 1F de la Convention de Genève ou de l'article 12 (2) de la directive
2011/95 portent gravement atteinte aux deux valeurs fondamentales telles que le respect de la dignité
humaine et les DH sur laquelle, comme indiqué à l'article 2 TUE, l’UE est fondée, et la paix que
l'Union entend promouvoir, en vertu de l'article 3 TUE. […] Il découle de ce qui précède qu'une
restriction imposée par un État membre à la liberté de circulation et de séjour d'un citoyen de
l'Union ou d'un membre de la famille d'un ressortissant de pays tiers d'un tel citoyen, qui a fait
l'objet, dans le passé, d'un décision d'exclure cette personne du statut de réfugié en vertu de l'article
1F de la convention de Genève ou de l'article 12, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2011/95, peut entrer
dans le champ d'application de la notion de « mesures prises pour des motifs d'ordre public ou de
sécurité publique », au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, premier alinéa, de la directive 2004/38 »

For the grounds of public security, there is ECJ, 2017, E v. Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava,
« […] Il est loisible aux EM de considérer des I pénales telles que l'exploitation sexuelle des enfants
comme constituant une menace particulièrement grave pour l'un des intérêts fonda de la S, qui
pourrait constituer une menace directe pour le calme et la sécurité physique des le pop et peut donc
ê couvert par le concept de raisons impératives de sécurité publique ».

And, for public health, there is ECJ, 2010, Nicolas Bressol v. communauté française « Les articles 18
et 21 TFUE s'opposent à une législation N, telle que celle en cause au principal, qui limite le nombre
d'étudiants non considérés comme résidant en Belgique qui peuvent s'inscrire pour la 1er fois à des
cours médicaux et paramédicaux dans des établissements d'enseignement supérieur, à - que le la
juridiction de renvoi, après avoir apprécié tous les éléments de preuve pertinents présentés par les
autorités compétentes, estime que cette législation est justifiée au regard de l'objectif de protection
de la santé publique. »(= 30% threshold for non-resident students).

B/ The right to « non-discriminatory living condition »

On the base of the right to move and reside freely, the texts and ECJ dev another kind of right : the
right to « non-discriminatory living condition ». It concern especially socials rights. A citizen of EU
residing in a MS should be treating like a national. This an expression we can see in the directive of
2014. ECJ create a EU social citizenship.

1 - The extension of equal treatment with nationals « within the scope of the treaty »
There is secondary law concerning the workers. We have art 7 of the reglement 1612/68 (now
reglement 492/2011) "[A worker who is a national of a MS] shall enjoy the same social and tax
advantages as national workers ». There is a broad interpretation . In fact, there is social advantage :
« this term covers all the advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are
generally granted to national workers primarily because of their status as workers or by virtue of
the mere fact of their ordinary residence on the national territory, and the extension of which to
migrant workers therefore seems likely to facilitate their mobility within the Community » (= tous
les avantages qui, liés ou non à un contrat de T, sont généralement accordés aux travailleurs N
principalement en raison de leur statut de travailleurs ou du seul fait de leur résidence habituelle sur
le territoire N, et dont l'extension aux travailleurs migrants semblent donc susceptibles de faciliter
leur mobilité au sein de la Communauté) (ECJ, 2007, Hendrix). And, this concern workers AND their
FM like childbirth and maternity allowance (=allocation de maternité) (ECJ, 1993, Commission v.
Luxemburg), adult disability benefit (=allocation pour handicapé adulte) (ECJ, 1993, Schmid v.
Belgium, C-310/91), guaranteed income for old persons (=revenu garanti aux P âgées) (ECJ,1984,
Castelli v. ONTPS). To make the right to move and reside freely useful, ECJ consider that is
necessary to develop social advantages.

The case law (=jurisprudence) extend the personal scope of the consequences of the right to move
and reside freely. This is ECJ, 1998, Martinez Sala. This case says that « «61. En tant que ressortissant
d'un EM résidant légalement sur le territoire d'un autre EM, le requérant au principal relève du
champ d'application ratione personae des dispositions du traité sur la citoyenneté européenne»
«62. L'article 8, paragraphe 2, du Le traité attache au statut de citoyen de l'Union les droits et devoirs
prévus par le traité, y compris le droit, énoncé à l'article 6 du traité, de ne pas subir de
discrimination fondée sur la nationalité dans le champ d'application ratione materiae de la Traité ».

Citizen of EU have the right not to suffer discrimination in all the competence of the EU, in all the
substantive file of the treaty. This case was codify in the directive of 2004 in her Art 24 « 1. […] all
Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host MS shall enjoy equal
treatment with the nationals of that MS within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be
extended to family members who are not nationals of a MS and who have the right of residence or
permanent residence » (secondary law concerning citizens). = «1. […] tous les citoyens de l'Union
résidant sur la base de la présente directive sur le territoire de l'État membre d'accueil bénéficient de
l'égalité de traitement avec les ressortissants de cet État membre dans le champ d'application du
traité. Le bénéfice de ce droit est étendu aux membres de la famille qui ne sont pas ressortissants
d'un État membre et qui ont le droit de séjour ou de séjour permanent »(droit dérivé concernant les
citoyens.

On this basis, many case law extends many rights in favor of human citizen. Example : extradition
right. Normally it’s specific to national but it recognize from a person of an another MS on the basis
of the right to non discrimination. The more telling example is everything on the social aspect.

But there is some limites. Art 24 of the directive 2004 give the line but the next paragraph give a
limit. It is mention that there is a right for equal treatment but there is a limit and this limit do not
applied on workers and their FM. It’s a limit only for person who are not workers. There is a way to
avoid that citizen of EU became a social burden. During the 3 first month of residence, a state can
decide not to grant social assistance except if a person is a worker and it’s even longer concerning
maintenance aid studies, including vocational training (= formation pro), consisting in student grants
(=bourses d’études) or student loans (=prêts étudiants) to persons other than workers, self employed
persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families prior to acquisition of the right
of permanent residence. So, their is no social assistance during the first 3 months of residence and no
maintenance aid for studies, including vocational training, consisting in student grants or student
loans (=prêt étudiant) to persons other than workers, self-employed persons, persons who retain such
status and members of their families prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence. Limit
applies to persons other than workers, self-employed persons, persons who retain such status and
members of their families.

2 - Towards an « EU social citizenship » (= une citoyenneté sociale européenne)?

Social policies are in principle outside the competence of the Union law but are regulated by the MS.
But, we have abundant JP of the ECJ on the protection of social rights = mainly by using the
provisions of the Treaty on the European citizenship – and more specifically the right to move and
reside freely (art. 21 TFEU, ex-18 EC), in combination with those against discrimination (art. 18
TFEU, ex-12 EC). The reasoning (= raisonnement) is that a refusal of such benefits would restrict his
right to move and reside freely within the territory of the MS and would be discriminatory on
grounds of nationality to the extent that it provides a significant contribution to the development of a
“EU social citizenship”. (= dans la mesure où il apporte une contribution significative au
développement d'une «citoyenneté sociale européenne»).

a) the extension of national assistance benefits to EU citizens and their family member.
ECJ granted to union citizens many social right. We can wonder if EU social citizenship exist. Social
policies are in principle outside the competence of the Union law but are regulated by the MS. But
abondant JP of the ECJ on the protection of social right mainly by using the provisions of the Treaty
on the European citizenship and more specifically the right to move and reside freely in combination
with those against discrimination. If a citizen want to move and reside freely in another MS, it should
do it without wonder if he could benefit of social right. Social protection benefit shouldn’t make
citizen reluctant to go in another MS. It’s too grant social benefit for EU citizens. A refusal of such
benefits would restrict right to move and reside freely within the territory the MS and would be
discriminatory on grounds of nationality. Through the CEU, the ECJ recognize social benefits to EU
citizens residing in the territory of another MS. We can takes examples.

b) the limit and the recent evolution

But there is also limit. The first limit is in the directive itself. The other limit come from the ECJ case
law. In the directive 2004/38 we have limits in Art 24 (1):  only if the social benefit falls within the
scope of EU law (= uniquement si la prestation sociale relève du champ d'application du D de
l’Union). And, Art. 24(2) = possible limitation for persons other than workers (see supra). And, there
is evolutions in the ECJ caselaw with the introduction of a new criterion who is the degree of
integration in the host MS and the inflexion concerning the social rights with the fear of «  social
tourism ».

The introduction of the new criterion (degree of integration), can be in favor of the EU citizens. We
can see that in 2 cases : ECJ, 2005, Bidar and ECJ, 2013, Prinz & Seeberger (C-523/11 & C-585/11).
The new criterion can also be an additional condition for EU citizens.

There is the inflexion concerning the social right : the fear of social tourism. We can see a
contradiction in the directive. The directive impose condition like having sufficient resourcing and a
complete medical assistance to reside in another MS. But at the same time, with article 24, the MS
have to grant equal treatment with N. There is 2 aspects because of the expensive interpretation of
ECJ :the MS have to grant equal treatment even if the person doesn’t have sufficient ressources and
a complete social assistance. A MS have a possibility to refusing this to inactive union citizen.

We can illustrate with ECJ, 2014, Dano. 2 Romanian nationals, citizens of the EU, a mother and her
son, economically inactive, without resources and residing in Germany for less than 5 years. They
applied for a special non-contributory cash benefit, being granted to nationals without work and
resources. ECJ Decision Dano says that «  74 To accept that persons who do not have a right of
residence under Directive 2004/38 may claim entitlement (= droit) to social benefits under the same
conditions as those applicable to nationals of the host MS would run counter to an objective of the
directive, set out in recital 10 in its preamble, namely (= à savoir) preventing Union citizens who are
nationals of other MS from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of
the host MS ». (= Accepter que les P qui ne disposent pas d'un D de séjour au titre de la directive
2004/38 puissent prétendre au droit aux prestations sociales dans les mêmes conditions que celles
applicables aux ressortissants de l’EM d'accueil serait contraire à un objectif de la directive, énoncé
au considérant 10 de son préambule, à savoir empêcher les citoyens de l'Union ressortissants d'un
autre EM de devenir une charge déraisonnable pour le système d'assistance sociale de l’EM
d’accueil) And, «  78 A MS must therefore have the possibility, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive
2004/38, of refusing to grant social benefits to economically inactive Union citizens who exercise
their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain another Member State’s social assistance
although they do not have sufficient resources to claim a right of residence  » (= Un EM doit donc
avoir la possibilité, conformément à l'art 7 directive 2004, de refuser d'octroyer des prestations
sociales à des citoyens de l'Union économiquement inactifs qui exercent leur droit à la libre
circulation uniquement pour obtenir l'aide sociale d'un autre EM alors qu'ils ne disposent pas de
ressources suffisantes pour revendiquer un D de séjour). So, the equal treatment between nationals
and other EU citizens does not prevail (= ne prévaut pas).

ECJ, 2015, Alimanovic give same decision in spite of (= malgré) facts with significant differences.
Swedish nationals with close links with Germany, mother and older daughter having worked and
seeking employements actively = withdrawal by the Jobcenter of benefits by the way of basic
provision (‘Grundsicherung’) provided for under German law. ECJ, 2016, Garcia Nieto have the
same logic : the « mechanical implementation » of directive 2004/38. ECJ case law no more led by a
concern of social equality / solidarity?
The right to move and reside freely in the heart of CEU. On the basis of this right, many other rights/
connected rights were granted for EU citizens by extended the personal scope of this right but also by
extended the substantive scope of the right concerning the social aspect.

Session 7. The « administrative » rights of the EU citizens

There is the right to petition the EP and the right to complain to the Ombudsman who are very
important but there a not much use. It’s a right that is about transparency. There is right to
communicate in one of the official languages of the EU and the right to access to documents. These
right are outed together, presented together in the primary law itself. Art 20 §2 TFEU list all the right.
The art 24 TFEU have a sentence for each of this right. There is the 3 first right presented together.
Then, the right to access to documents it’s in Art 15 TFEU. There is also these right in EUCFR. In TFEU
there is more political conception and in the EUCFR there is more the notion of fondamental right, its
a different way of presentation.
Is rights for the protection of citizens as “administers”. The personal scope is broad : EU citizens and
residents, or even « every person » for the right to communicate. Who have these right? In the TFEU
it’s every citizen but in the Charter it’s all the person. But there another is articles. The personal scope
is very broader. It’s concerning citizens but not only : EU citizens and resident, or even «  every
person » for the right to communicate.
Concerning the substantive scope, there are classical rights, usually recognized in national laws. It’s
about the relations with the Union institutions and/or organs and about transparency and
accountability. But not at political level and not about political relations. It’s at “administrative” level/
about administrative relations.

I - The right to petition

This right exists since 1953 and was inserted in the Rules of Procedure of the Common Assembly of
the ECSC : a right of Union citizens since the EiF of the Maastricht Treaty. Concerning the sources,
we have Article 44 EUCFR «  Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or
having its registered office in a MS has the right to petition the European Parliament ». Also, Art 24,
al. 2 TFEU « […] Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to petition the European Parliament in
accordance with Art 227 ». There is Art 227 TFEU too : « Any citizen of the Union, and any natural
or legal person residing or having its registered office in a MS, shall have the right to address,
individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament
on a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it
directly. » We have the source of he EP’s Rules of procedure : Rules 215 to 218 and Annex V (XX).

A/ The personal scope (who)

Its a right for EU citizens and residents (art. 227 TFEU « Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or
legal person residing or having its registered office in a MS »). It’s not reserved to the Union citizens,
not even reserved to natural persons (= P phy), but also to legal persons acting individually or
collectively (art. 227 TFEU « address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons »).
In fact, you can support a petition to the EP. And its a right for EU citizens and residents acting
individually or collectively directly concerned (art. 227 TFEU «  which affects him, her or it
directly  »). There is a requirement of being directly affected. But, this condition is interpreted very
broadly: nothing to do with the requirement of “direct and individual concern” of art. 263 al. 4 TFEU
on the action for annulment.

B/ The substantive scope (what and how)

Role
This right is a legal tool (= outil juridique) for the Union citizens to contact the European institutions
with a request or a complaint. It’s also a right to ask the EP to act vis-a-vis another institution, or to
modify a policy, or to organize constultations on a topic, etc. EP receives more than 2 000 petitions
each year; many of them are inadmissible; it deals with about 600 petitions each year.

Subject
On an issue that “comes within the Union's fields of activity” (=Relève des domaines d’activité de
l’Union). There is a wide interpretation (contrary to the case of the ECJ) who including issues linked
to the transposition of directives or implementation of EU law by MS (=qui incluent les Q liées à la
transposition des directives ou à la mise en œuvre du droit de l'UE par les EM). The major part of the
activity of the EP through petition is about petition relating to the application of EU law by MS
authorities.

Procedure
Petitions are examined by the Parliament’s committe on Petitions, to decide on their admissibility. It
is then responsible for dealing with the request or complaint (= Il est alors chargé de traiter la
demande ou la réclamation). For admissibility, there is formal requirements : the petition states the
name, nationality and address of each petitioner, the petition is written in one of the official EU
languages, the petition can be tabled either by electronic means or by post . There is also substantive/
material aspects : affects the petitioner(s) directly, comes within the EU’s fields of activity. If the
petition is declared admissible, then there is examination of the petition and follow-up.
«  Depending on the circumstances, the Committee on Petitions may take one or more of the
following actions: ask the European Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation on a petition
and provide information regarding compliance (=conformité) with relevant EU legislation/refer the
petition to other European Parliament Committees for information or further action (= action
complémentaire) (a committee might, for example, take account of a petition in its legislative
activities)/ if the petition concerns a specific case requiring individual attention, the Committee may
contact the appropriate institutions or authorities or intervene through the permanent
representation of the MS concerned to settle the matter (=régler l’affaire)/ take any other action
considered appropriate to try to resolve an issue or deliver a suitable response (=apporter une
réponse adaptée) to the petition ».

There is consequences. The EP « dispose d'un large pv discrétionnaire, de nature politique, quant à la
manière dont cette pétition doit ê traitée» (General Court, 2011, Tegebauer v. Parliament; ECJ, 2014,
Schönberger v. Parliament). But, there no decision-making power (= pas de pv de décision). We can
see that in CJUE, 2014, Schönberger v. Parlement. Petitions examined by the EP regularly lead to the
Commission initiating an infringement procedure (= les pétitions examinées par le Parlement
conduisent régulièrement la Commission à ouvrir une procédure d’infraction).

II – Right to apply to the Ombudsman (= droit de saisir le médiateur européen)

The European Ombudsman (= médiateur européen) were created by the Maastricht Treaty. The statuts
and duties spelt out (=énoncés) by the EP in a decision of 1994 = elected after each elections for the
EP and for the duration of the legislature. His role is to improve the protection of citizens in
connection with cases of maladministration by EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and to
enhance openness (= améliorer l’ouverture) and democratic accountability in the decision-making
and administration of the EU’s institutions.

A/The personal scope : who can complain?

 Union citizens and residents Art. 228
TEU « to receive complaints from any
citizen of the Union or any natural or
legal person residing or having its
registered office in a MS».

B/ The substantive scope : what and

how
There is a preliminary procedure. A
complaint must have been preceded
by actions to find a solution with the
institution/organ/body etc. But, there
is no judicial procedure in progress or
closed on the same issue. There is a
deadline : the complaint must be
introduced within 2 years from the
knowledge of the facts. Concerning
the “maladministration”;
«  maladministration occurs when a
public body fails to act in accordance
with a rule or principle which is
binding upon it  » (= se produit
lorsqu'un organisme public n'agit pas
conformément à une R ou à un
principe qui le lie) (annual report
1997) Exemple : if an institution fails to
respect fundamental rights, legal rules or principles, or the principles of good administration. The
Ombudsman’s inquiries mainly concern: transparency/accountability; culture of service; respect for
procedural rights; proper use of discretion; good management of EU personnel issues; public
participation in EU decision-making; recruitment.

« in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of
the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role ». It’s very large. But, there is no
complaint against the ECJ, except in its administrative role and there is no complaint from MS, or
infringement (=violation) of EU law by MS.

The distinction between the petition to the EP and the complaint to the Ombudsman is not easy. But
the scope of the right to petition is broader because it can lead to the control of the MS authorities,
on the contrary to the Ombudsman. The Commission is the target of a high number of complaints
Most of the allegations of « maladministration » are linked to a lack of transparency.= la portée du
droit de pétition est + large car il peut conduire au contrôle des autorités des EM, contrairement au
Médiateur. La Commission fait l'objet d'un nombre élevé de plaintes. La plupart des allégations de
«mauvaise administration» sont liées à un manque de transparence.
Procedure
le Médiateur mène les enquêtes qu’il estime justifiées, soit de sa propre initiative, soit sur la base de
plaintes qui lui sont soumises directement ou par l’intermédiaire d’un membre du Parlement
européen, sauf lorsque les faits allégués font ou ont fait l’objet de poursuites judiciaires. Lorsque le
médiateur constate un cas de mauvaise administration, il saisit l'institution, l'organe ou l'agence
concerné, qui dispose d'un délai de 3 mois pour l'informer de son avis. Le médiateur transmet
ensuite un rapport au Parlement européen et à l’institution/organe/agence concernée. La P qui
introduit la plainte est informée du résultat de ces enquêtes. Le Médiateur procède aux enquêtes qu’il
estime justifiées, soit de sa propre initiative, soit sur la base des plaintes qui lui ont été présentées,
émanant de tout citoyen de l’Union ou de toute P phy/mo résidant ou ayant son siège statutaire dans
un EM, directement ou par l’intermédiaire d’un député au Parlement européen, sauf si les faits
allégués font ou ont fait l’objet d’une procédure juridictionnelle.

Consequences
This results in a public report only. There is no constraint measure possible vis-a-vis the institution of
organ, this is no decision making power.

III – Right to communicate in one of the (official) languages of the EU

There is this right since the Amsterdam Treaty. Its linked to the protection of the linguistic diversity in
the EU.

Concerning the personal scope (who), it’s a right for “every person”. TFEU says « Every citizen of the
Union  » and EUCFR «  Every person  ». For the substantive scope(what and how), it’s concern
institutions and some bodies. EUCFR talk about “institutions of the Union” and TFEU « institutions or
bodies referred to in this Art or in Art 13 of the TEU ». (7 institutions art. 13 TEU + CESE + CDR +
Ombudsman mentioned in the art).

IV – Right of access to documents

This right exist since Amsterdam T. But, there was already some texts before. This right is an
expression of the principle of transparency. We have Art 42 EUCFR, Art. 1563 TFEU and Règlement
(CE) n ° 1049/2001 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 30 mai 2001 relatif à l'accès du public
au Parlement européen, du Conseil et de la Commission. It’s a right for Union citizens and residents,
a Union citizens’ right. But, it’s also a field of competence for the Union. There is a complex
implementation and significant case-law.

Session 8. The diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens

The right to move and reside freely & other Union citizens’ rights is within the territory of the MS .
The right to enjoy the diplomatic and consular protection is in the territory of a third country. The
right to enjoy a diplomatic and consular protection is an expression of European solidarity. It
provides an external dimension to the concept of CEU and strengthens (=renforce) the identity of the
Union in third countries”. (Directive 2015/637, recital 3). Every year (except 2020…), Europeans
make 90 millions trips outside the EU. Almost 7 million EU citizens travel to or live in a place where
their country is not represented through an embassy or a consulate (= Près de 7 millions de citoyens
de l'UE voyagent ou vivent dans un lieu où leur pays n'est pas représenté par une ambassade ou un
consulat). In consequence, these Union citizens cannot ask for the protection of their respective
national countries in case of emergency or problem in the territory of the third country. (= En
conséquence, ces citoyens de l'Union ne peuvent pas demander la protection de leurs pays
nationaux respectifs en cas d'urgence ou de problème sur le territoire du pays tiers.) A (part of the)
solution is the CEU.

There is primary law : Art 20 TFEU «  c) le D de bénéficier, sur le territoire d'un pays tiers où l’EM
dont ils sont ressortissants n'est pas représenté, de la protection des autorités diplomatiques et
consulaires de tout EM dans les mêmes conditions que les ressortissants de cet État ». Art 23 TFUE
« Tout citoyen de l'Union bénéficie, sur le territoire d'un pays tiers où l’EM dont il est ressortissant
n'est pas représenté, de la protection de la part des autorités diplomatiques et consulaires de tout EM
dans les mêmes conditions que les nationaux de cet État. Les États membres prennent les dispositions
nécessaires et engagent les négociations interN requises en vue d'assurer cette protection ». Art 46
EUCFR «  protection diplomatique et consulaire  » : «  Tout citoyen de l'Union bénéficie, sur le
territoire d'un pays tiers où l’EM dont il est ressortissant n'est pas représenté, de la protection des
autorités diplomatiques et consulaires de tout État membre dans les mêmes conditions que les
ressortissants de cet État ».

In the secondary law, the main text is the Council directive2015/637 of 24 April 2015 on the
coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens
of the Union in third countries (= les mesures de coordination et de coopération visant à faciliter la
protection consulaire des citoyens non représentés de l'Union dans les pays tiers). In fact, in art 23 al
2 TFEU, it is said that «  Le Conseil, statuant conformément à une procédure législative spéciale et
après consultation du Parlement européen, peut adopter des directives établissant les mesures de
coordination et de coopération nécessaires pour faciliter cette protection ».

I - The personal scope

A/ The beneficiaries of the protection : who can be protected?
This right concern “Every citizen of the Union” “Being in the territory of a third country” “in which
the MS of which he is a national is not represented” = no embassy or consulate. Art 23 TFEU « Tout
citoyen de l'Union bénéficie, sur le territoire d'un pays tiers où l'État membre dont il est ressortissant
n'est pas représenté » This is a right for « unrepresented Union citizens » only. Dans combien de pays
tiers tous les EM de l'UE sont-ils représentés : 4 (USA, China, India, Russia). On peut comparer avec
la France: (180 représentations dans des pays tiers) et Malte (29). You will be allowed to ask for
protection to another MS only if our embassy of MS is not here. Is it useful ? The effet utile of the
right depend on our nationality : for little MS right is very interesting (expensive to have embassies in
all the third country). This right will apply where all the 27 MS are not represented, only 4 third
country have all 27 EU countries : USA/China/Russia/ India. Usually there will be several consulate
because it’s big countries. Exemple France : 180 representations in third countries ≠ Malta : 29
representations.

are family members of Union citizens also protected? (= third-country nationals). In the treaties is not
mentioned (= like for the right to move and reside freely where FM are not mentioned in Art. 21
TFEU). But, in secondary law, more precisely in the 2015/637 Directive, there is Art 5 «  Family
members of unrepresented citizens in third countries. Consular protection shall be provided to
family members, who are not themselves citizens of the Union, accompanying unrepresented
citizens in a third country, to the same extent and on the same conditions as it would be provided
to the family members of the citizens of the assisting MS, who are not themselves citizens of the
Union, in accordance with its national law or practice ». (= Membres de la famille de citoyens non
représentés dans des pays tiers. Une protection consulaire est accordée aux membres de la famille,
qui ne sont pas citoyens de l'Union, accompagnant un citoyen non représenté dans un pays tiers,
dans la même mesure et dans les mêmes conditions qu'elle serait accordée aux mb de la famille
d'un citoyen de l’EM prêtant assistance qui ne sont pas citoyens de l’Union, conformément au D ou
à la pratique N de cet État ».

why ensuring the protection of the family members of Union citizens? To ensure the effectiveness of:
the right of Union citizens to enjoy diplomatic and consular protection, the right to respect for private
and family life (art7 EUCFR), the best interests of the child where assistance for minors is concerned
(art 24 EUCFR + Art 1 Conv on the Rights of the Child of 20 Nov 1989). It’s important because the
Union citizen will not have to choose between enjoying the consular protection alone (his family
remaining unprotected) OR staying with his family without protection for anyone. There is an
extension of the personal scope of the protection by Directive 2015/637 (it’s a major evolution).

B/ Those responsible for the protection : who protects?

Selon Art 23 TFUE «  (…)de la protection de la part des autorités diplomatiques et consulaires de
tout EM, dans les mêmes conditions que les nationaux de cet État. Les EM prennent les dispositions
nécessaires et engagent les négociations internationales requises en vue d'assurer cette protection »

1 - “the diplomatic or consular authorities”

There is embassy, the main location for a diplomatic presence of one country in another (= le lieu
principal d'une présence diplomatique d'un pays dans un autre). There is one embassy in another
country (most of the time in the capital city). It’s for political and diplomatic relations. There is
consulates, they are like branch offices of the embassy. They can have several consulates in another
country. It’s for travel and immigration issues, trade and facilitation of cultural exchanges. There is
diplomatic protection, the national State intervenes in favor of a national who incurred (=encouru) a
damage because of the breach of international law (=violation du D interN) by the host State. (=
l'État national intervient en faveur d'un ressortissant qui a subi un dommage du fait de la violation du
droit interN par l'État d’accueil). Also, we have consular protection: the national State helps a
national to defend his/her rights in the host State, according to the host State domestic law (=D
interne) (= l'État national aide un national à défendre ses D dans l'État d'accueil, conformément au
D interne de l'État hôte) , for instance by contacting the relevant authorities.

2- “of any MS” = de n'importe quel MS

« any MS » means that there is no order of preference. Every MS of the EU can protect the Union
citizens from any MS (= Chaque EM de l'UE peut protéger les citoyens de l'Union de n'importe
quel EM). But, there is possible practical arrangements between MS, to « mutualised », in a way (= en
qlq sorte), their protection in one or several third country(ies), especially for «  little  » MS. A
contrario, there is no third countries but also not the EU itself, even if the EU has its own
representations around the world.

Concerning the « Union delegations », there is art 221 TFEU: « 1. Les délégations de l'Union dans
les pays tiers et auprès des organisations internationales assurent la représentation de l'Union. 2. Les
délégations de l'Union sont placées sous l'autorité du haut représentant de l'Union pour les affaires
étrangères et la politique de sécurité. Elles agissent en étroite coopération avec les missions
diplomatiques et consulaires des États membres.» . Exemple : Part of the European (Union) External
Action Service (EEAS), this is a kind of EU Ministry of Foreign affairs. There is 135 Union delegations
in third countries (+ 9 in IOs) around the world. In many third countries there are union delegations
to represent the EU. But this delegation can’t have a protection of diplomatic protection (MS keep
this symbolic protection). The union delegations only have a limited role to cooperate and coordinate
with MS : directive 2015.
Pourquoi pas les délégations de l'Union pour les missions diplomatique et consulaire, lorsqu'elles
sont présentes? Because the diplomatic and consular protection is an exclusive right of States. There
is only a limited role for Union delegations: framework (= cadre, structure) of cooperation of MS, not
substitution to MS. And, there is innovation from Directive 2015/637 (art. 11) « Le rôle des
délégations de l’Union » « Les délégations de l'Union assurent une coopération et une coordination
étroites avec les ambassades et les consulats des EM afin de contribuer à la coopération et à la
coordination au niveau local et en situation de crise, not en fournissant le soutien logistique
disponible, y compris des bureaux et des installations organisationnelles, par exemple des locaux
temporaires pour le personnel consulaire et les équipes d'intervention. Les délégations de l'Union et
le siège du SEAE facilitent également l'échange d'informations entre les ambassades et consulats des
EM et, s'il y a lieu, avec les autorités locales. Les délégations de l'Union mettent également à
disposition des informations d'ordre général concernant l'assistance à laquelle les citoyens non
représentés pourraient avoir droit, et notamment concernant les arrangements pratiques, le cas
échéant ». We can see a competence of support/coordination of the actions of MS, but not consular
protection itself! (= On peut voir une compétence de soutien / coordination des actions des EM, mais
pas la protection consulaire elle-même!).

II - The substantive scope

A/ The rules
There is a principle. This right is based on the principle of non discrimination on grounds of
nationality. (le principe de la non-discrimination en raison de la nationalité). It’s about egality
between Union citizens. The citizenship (link) replaces the nationality (link) to justify/permit the
consular protection (= La citoyenneté remplace la nationalité pour justifier/permettre la protection
consulaire. This principle is in Art 23 TFUE «Every citizens of the Union shall be (….) on the same
conditions as the nationals of that State ».

1 - In which situations?
Art. 9 directive 2015: « La protection consulaire visée à l'article 2 peut notamment comprendre des
mesures d'assistance dans les situations suivantes: a) arrestation ou détention; b) fait d'ê victime d'un
crime ou d'un délit; c) accident ou maladie grave; d) décès; e) besoin d'aide et de rapatriement en
situation d'urgence; f) besoin de titres de voyage provisoires comme prévu dans la décision 96/409/
PESC ( 1 ).». So, there is non-limitative list since «  inter alia  » (= entre autres). In fact, there is a
possibility for others situations because MS can apply for more favorable treatment and the
protection needed always depends on the factual situation. There is the possible more favorable
treatment (art. 16 dispose que « Les EM peuvent instaurer ou maintenir des dispositions + favorables
que la présente directive dans la mesure où elles sont compatibles avec celle-ci  ») and the
protection needed always depends on the factual situation (recital 14 D. 2015 dispose que « Comme
la protection nécessaire dépend toujours de la situation concrète, la protection consulaire ne devrait
pas se limiter aux cas spécifiquement mentionnés dans la présente directive ». ).

2 - What types of assistances?

There is legal assistance. Exemple : if arrested or victim of a crime. Also, there is practical assistance
Exemple: in case of a serious accident or illness, the consular authorities may inform the family or
employer, offer advice on seeking medical treatment, or ask your home country to arrange a medical
evacuation in serious cases.And, we have financial assistance. The combination is possible (c’est le
cas le + souvent).

Concerning the the issuance (= émission) of an emergency travel document, the citizen can’t back
home need an emergency travel document : new case expressly mentioned in the list of situations in
Directive of 2015: there is an enlargement of the substantive scope by D 2015/637. It’s completed by
the Council directive (EU) 2019/997 of 18 June 2019 establishing an EU Emergency travel
document : «  lays down rules on the conditions and procedure for unrepresented citizens in third
countries to obtain an EU Emergency Travel Document (‘EU ETD’) and establishes a uniform format
for such document  » (art. 1). «  The EU ETD […] shall be issued by a Member State to an
unrepresented citizen in a third country for a single journey to the citizen’s MS of nationality or
residence, as requested by the citizen, or exceptionally, to another destination. MS may also decide
to issue EU ETDs to other recipients […] » (art. 3). (= établit des R sur les conditions et la procédure
permettant aux citoyens non représentés dans les pays tiers d’obtenir un document de voyage
d’urgence de l’UE et établit un format uniforme pour ce document (art. 1)/L’EU ETD […] est délivré
par un EM à un citoyen non représenté dans un pays tiers pour un seul voyage vers l’EM de
nationalité ou de résidence du citoyen, à la demande du citoyen, ou, à titre exceptionnel, vers une
autre destination. Les EM peuvent également décider de délivrer des ETD UE à d'autres destinataires
(art. 3)).

3 - On what conditions ?
There is 3 conditions. First, it’s necessary to prove one’s nationality, to prove that you are a Union
citizen. And, a prior consultation (=consultation préalable) of the MS of nationality. The MS shall
consult the M of foreign affairs of the MS of which the person claims to be national= L'État membre
consulte le M des affaires étrangères de l'État membre dont la personne prétend ê ressortissant. It’s
art. 10, §2, D. 2015 : «2. Lorsqu'un EM reçoit une demande de protection consulaire de la part
d'une P qui prétend ê un citoyen non représenté, ou qu'il est informé d'une situation d'urgence
donnée dans laquelle se trouve un citoyen non représenté, telle que celles énumérées à l'art 9, il
consulte sans tarder le ministère des affaires étrangères de l’EM dont la P revendique la nationalité
ou, le cas échéant, l'ambassade ou le consulat compétent de cet EM, et il lui fournit toutes les
informations utiles dont il dispose, y compris concernant l'identité de la P concernée, les coûts
éventuels de la protection consulaire et concernant les mb de la famille auxquels la protection
consulaire peut également ê accordée. Sauf en cas d'extrême urgence, cette consultation intervient
avant qu'une assistance ne soit fournie. L’EM prêtant assistance facilite également l'échange
d'informations entre le citoyen concerné et les autorités de l’EM dont le citoyen a la nationalité. ».

Also, concerning the financial assistance, a whole Chapter (chap. 3) of the 2015 Directive is
dedicated to the « Financial procedures ». Art 14 give general rules. Normally, we have 3 steps: (1)
Unrepresented citizens shall undertake to repay to their MS of nationality the cost of consular
protection (= s'engagent à rembourser à leur EM de nationalité les frais de protection
consulaire) :using the standard form set out in Annex I D. 2015: « common formats for undertaking to
repay costs ». (2) The assisting MS may ask for the reimbursement of costs from the unrepresented
citizen's Member State of nationality (= L'État membre aidant peut demander le remboursement des
frais à l'État membre de nationalité du citoyen non représenté) = using the standard form set out in
Annex II D. 2015: form of the request for reimbursement. And (3), the unrepresented citizen's MS of
nationality may ask the unrepresented citizen concerned to reimburse such costs. (=l'État membre
de nationalité du citoyen non représenté peut demander au citoyen concerné non représenté de
rembourser ces frais).

L’art 14 de la directive de 2014 dispose que «  1. Les citoyens non représentés s'engagent à
rembourser à l’EM dont ils ont la nationalité les coûts de la protection consulaire, selon les mêmes
conditions que les ressortissants de l'État membre prêtant assistance, au moyen du formulaire type
figurant à l'annexe I. Les citoyens non représentés sont tenus de s'engager à rembourser uniquement
les coûts qui auraient été supportés par des ressortissants de l'État membre prêtant assistance dans les
mêmes conditions. 2. L’EM prêtant assistance peut demander le remboursement des coûts visés au
§1 à l'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité, au moyen du formulaire type
figurant à l'annexe II. L'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité rembourse ces
coûts dans un délai raisonnable, qui n'excède pas douze mois. L'État membre dont le citoyen non
représenté a la nationalité peut demander au citoyen non représenté de rembourser ces coûts. 3.
Lorsque la protection consulaire accordée à un citoyen non représenté en cas d'arrestation ou de
détention entraîne des coûts essentiels et justifiés exceptionnellement élevés de transport,
d'hébergement ou de traduction pour les autorités diplomatiques ou consulaires, l'État membre
prêtant assistance peut demander à l'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité de
rembourser ces coûts, et ce, dans un délai raisonnable, qui n'excède pas douze mois.

Donc, les citoyens non représentés s'engagent à rembourser à leur État membre de nationalité les
frais de protection en utilisant un formulaire standard établit : «formats communs pour l'engagement
de remboursement des frais». Puis, l'État membre aidant peut demander le remboursement des frais
au citoyen non représenté avec le «  formulaire de la demande de remboursement». Enfin, L'État
membre de nationalité du citoyen non représenté peut demander au citoyen concerné non
représenté pour rembourser le coût. L’objectif est d’éviter un excès de coûts.

There is an exception in article 15 because there is a facilitated procedure in crisis situations. The
assisting MS may seek such reimbursement even if the unrepresented citizen has not signed an
undertaking (=un engament) to repay. « 1. En situation de crise, l’EM prêtant assistance adresse toute
demande de remboursement des coûts afférents à tout soutien apporté à un citoyen non représenté
au ministère des affaires étrangères de l'État membre dont ce citoyen non représenté a la nationalité.
L’EM prêtant assistance peut demander ce remboursement même si le citoyen non représenté n'a pas
signé d'engagement de remboursement conformément à l'art 14 § 1. La présente disposition
n'empêche pas l'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité de réclamer le
remboursement au citoyen non représenté sur le fondement du droit national. 2. L'État membre
prêtant assistance peut demander à l'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité de
rembourser ces coûts au prorata, en divisant le montant total des coûts réels encourus par le nombre
de citoyens ayant bénéficié d'une assistance. 3. Si l'État membre prêtant assistance a obtenu un
soutien financier dans le cadre de l'assistance fournie au titre du mécanisme de protection civile de
l'Union, toute contribution de l'État membre dont le citoyen non représenté a la nationalité est
déterminée après déduction de la contribution de l’Union ».

B/ The difficulties and uncertainties

1 - The uncertain nature of the protection
In Primary law, there is no definition of the protection itself. And, “diplomatic & consular
protection” (art. 46 EUCFR), it’s ambiguous. In secondary law, 2015/637 Directive says «  on the
coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of
the Union in third countries ». Many citizens don’t that they have this right.
The uncertain nature of the protection : diplomatic or consular protection ? The objective is the
protection. Art 23 TFEU don’t say if it’s diplomatic or consular nature (art 46 EUCFR = ambiguous).
The final objective is to ensure diplomatic and consular protection but for the moment the directive
2015 facilitate only consular protection.

2 - Some unresolved issue

We can give examples: Is it necessary for the MS of protection to have the agreement of the MS of
nationality? What to do if a Union citizen request simultaneously or successively the protection of
several MS in the territory of a third country? a risk of «  consular protection shopping  »? (= Est-il
nécessaire que l'État membre de protection ait l'accord de l'État membre de nationalité? Que faire si
un citoyen de l'Union demande simultanément ou successivement la protection de plusieurs États
membres sur le territoire d'un pays tiers? un risque de «shopping de protection consulaire» ?). This
could create competition between MS but this is not really a pb because MS not really want to be the
one to give protection but still. It occurs in natural disaster (reason of the directive) : tsunami where
not many MS were represented on the third country = cost a lot.

Sessions 9 §10. The political rights of the Union citizens

« political rights » in the sense that they grant the citizens the faculty to participate in the exercise of
power by designating their representatives, or, in more exceptional cases by taking part directly in
the decision-making process (= ils accordent aux citoyens la faculté de participer à l'exercice du
pouvoir en désignant leurs représentants ou, dans des cas plus exceptionnels, en participant
directement au processus décisionnel). The are an answer to the democratic deficit and the issue of
the legitimacy of the Union.(=réponse au déficit démocratique et à la question de la légitimité de
l’Union.)

We can talk about democratic deficit, is a term used by people who argue that the EU institutions
and their decision making procedures suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to the
ordinary citizen due to their complexity. (= les institutions de l'UE et leurs procédures décisionnelles
souffrent d'un manque de démocratie et semblent inaccessibles au citoyen ordinaire en raison de
leur complexité) […]. EU voters do not feel that they have an effective way to reject a ‘government’
they do not like, and to change, in some ways, the course of politics and policy. (= Les électeurs de
l’UE n’estiment pas disposer d’un moyen efficace de rejeter un «gouvernement» qu’ils n’apprécient
pas et de changer, d’une certaine manière, le cours de la politique et de la politique). Legitimacy of
the Union is about « the recognition of [their] political system by the citizens ».

Political rights here include electoral rights: involvement (=participation) of the Union citizens in the
election and composition of representative institution. And, the European citizen’s initiative(ECI):
involvement of the Union citizens more directly in the decision-making process.

Session 9. The right to vote and to stand as a candidate, the electoral rights of the Union citizens
Introduction. Sources
Primary law
Art 20 TFEU : Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in
the Treaties. They shall have the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European
Parliament and in municipal elections in their MS of residence, under the same conditions as
nationals of that State. Art 22 TFEU: Every citizen of the Union residing in a MS of which he is not a
national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the MS in
which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.
Art 39 EUCFR- Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament  :
Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the
European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as
nationals of that State. Members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal
suffrage in a free and secret ballot. Art 40 EUCFR - Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at
municipal elections : every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at
municipal elections in the MS in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of
that State. = c’est le D d’égibilité.

Secondary law
There is 2 main texts.

Concerning the materiel scope, those rights concern 2 rights. First, the right to vote and the right to
stand as a candidate. Also, it concerns 2 kinds of elections : municipal elections and election to the
EP. But, EU citizens are not allow by the EU rules, to vote in general elections for example. There is
limitation of the electoral rights as EU citizens to these 2 kinds of elections, for the others, it depends
on national law, there is no obligation coming from EU law.

Concerning the personal scope, who is concerned? only Union citizens (not their family members).
Union citizens can vote only «  in the MS in which he or she resides  » : only Union citizens who
exercised their right to move and reside freely.

Which rules are applicable? National rules « under the same conditions as nationals of that State ».
We have the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. And, the rules are not the
same in the different MS, there is no common rules/no harmonization. Only “directives”! So we have
room for maneuver (= marge de manoeuvre)/flexibility for MS.

Which other elements prove that the MS decided to keep a large control over this right? There is 2
thing in Art 22 §1/§2 TFEU « This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted
by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after
consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where
warranted by problems specific to a Member State » (= Ce D est exercé sous réserve des modalités
adoptées par le Conseil statuant à l'unanimité selon une procédure législative spéciale et après
consultation du Parlement européen; ces dispositions peuvent prévoir des dérogations lorsque des
problèmes spécifiques à un EM le justifient). So, there is non-involvement of the EP in the adoption
of the directive/definition of the modalities. Modalities are adopted by the Council, acting
unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European
Parliament. And, there is possibility of derogations.

I – The right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections

The principle is in article 22§1 TFEU & article 40 EUCFR. At stake, for EU citizens who reside in MS
other than their own to become better integrated in the political and social life of their host society
(=mieux s'intégrer dans la vie politique et sociale de leur société d’accueil) (cf Commission, Report
on the implementation of EU law in local elections and ways to promote the electoral rights, adopted
on 9 March 2012). Its is a touchy subject because there is an impact inside the MS political systems/
part of the state power. (= C'est un sujet délicat car il y a un impact à l'intérieur des systèmes
politiques des États membres / une partie du pouvoir de l’État). And, there is a fear that it could then
be extended to others non-nationals, being not Union citizens and a fear that it could be extended to
others national elections. In consequences, it not easy for MS to grant this right to Union citizens. A
directive is adopted in 1994 only.

Concerning modalities, Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed
arrangements (= fixe des modalités détaillées) for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a
candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a MS of which they are not
nationals, JO L 368 du 31.12.1994, p. 38 (consolidated version 2013).

A/The modalities of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate

What are municipal elections? It depend on the MS concerned. Each MS is free to identify the
relevant entities such elections concern (= libre d'identifier les entités concernées par ces élections)
(listed in Annex of D. 94/80). Examples: in France, «  commune, arrondissement dans les villes
déterminées par la législation interne, section de commune  ». In Belgium  «  commune/gemeente/
Gemeinde  ». In UK, «  counties in England; counties, county boroughs and communities in Wales:
regions and Islands in Scotland; districts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; London
boroughs; parishes in England; the City of London in relation to ward elections for common
councilmen ». Selon l’article 2 de la Directive de 1994, « b) «élections municipales»: les élections
au suffrage universel direct visant à désigner les membres de l'assemblée représentative et, le cas
échéant, selon la législation de chaque État membre, le chef et les membres de l'exécutif d'une
collectivité locale de base ». Et « a) «collectivité locale de base»: les entités administratives figurant à
l'annexe qui, selon la législation de chaque État membre, ont des organes élus au suffrage universel
direct et sont compétentes pour administrer, au niveau de base de l'organisation politique et
administrative, sous leur propre responsabilité, certaines affaires locales ».

Who are the beneficiaries? Any person who is a citizen of the Union and any person who is not a
national of the MS of residence, mais satisfait en tout état de cause aux mêmes conditions en ce qui
concerne le droit de vote et d'éligibilité que cet État impose par la loi à ses propres ressortissants. Its
Art 3 Directive, there is 3 conditions. What does « but in any event satisfies the same conditions in
respect of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate as that State imposes by law on its own
nationals » mean ? This right is exercised by Union citizens in the MS of residence « under the same
conditions as its nationals ». Exemple 1: if condition of residence for nationals, it will be the same
duration for Union citizens (art. 4) Exemple 2: possible to limit the right to Union citizens who have
their “principal residence” in the unit, if also imposed on nationals (…) Exemple 3: if voting is
compulsory for nationals, it will be compulsory for Union citizens residing in this MS. PS. Voting is
compulsory in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece and Luxembourg. Also, there is the condition of age and no
deprivation from political rights in the MS of origin, etc.

What formalities? Is in art 7 directive. «  1. L'électeur visé à l'article 3 exerce son D de vote dans
l'ÉM de résidence s'il en a manifesté la volonté. 2. Si le vote est obligatoire dans l'État membre de
résidence, cette O est également applicable aux électeurs visés à l'article 3 qui s'y sont inscrits sur la
liste électorale. 3. Les États membres dans lesquels le vote n'est pas obligatoire peuvent prévoir une
inscription d'office sur la liste électorale des électeurs visés à l'article 3 ».

Registration on electoral rolls (=l’inscription sur les listes électorales) can be automatic like in Austria
(except Burgenland), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the
Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Unlike the European elections, the exercise
of the right to vote in the MS of residence does not imply the loss of the right to vote and to stand
as a candidate in the MS of nationality, if the latter authorizes it. (= Contrairement aux élections
européennes, l'exercice du droit de vote dans l'État membre de résidence n'implique pas la perte du
droit de vote et d'éligibilité dans l'État membre de nationalité, si ce dernier l’autorise)

B/ The derogations

Art 22 TFEU « ces dispositions peuvent prévoir des dérogations lorsque des problèmes spécifiques à
un EM le justifient ».

There is 2 main “problems specific to a Member State”. First, a high proportion of Union citizens in
the pop of a MS. And, the prohibition of access to some functions. The 2 problems leading to 2
kinds of derogations.

The first derogation is restriction in case of a high proportion of Union citizens. And here, there is
also 2 cases. Firstly, we have Article 12§1 Directive 94/80 who says that where the proportion of
citizens of the Union of voting age who reside in it but are not nationals of it exceeds 20 % of the
total number of citizens of the Union residing there who are of voting age (=la proportion de citoyens
de l'Union en âge de voter qui y résident mais n'en sont pas ressortissants dépasse 20% du nombre
total de citoyens de l'Union qui y résident et qui sont en âge de voter), the consequence is that the
EU MS may require an additional period of residence for participating in local elections, for right to
vote as well as for right to stand as a candidate. (= Les EM de l'UE peuvent exiger une période de
résidence supplémentaire pour participer aux élections locales, pour le D de vote ainsi que pour le
D de se porter candidat). which MS is (are) concerned? only Luxembourg is concerned : requires a
residence in the territory for at least five years before registration.

And, there is the case of Article 12§2 Directive 94/80. This a specific derogation for Belgium
expressly because this country is not entirely concerned by Art. 12 §1 «  2. Le Royaume de Belgique
peut, par dérogation aux dispositions de la présente directive, appliquer les dispositions du
paragraphe 1, point a), à un nombre limité de collectivités locales, dont il communique la liste au
moins un an avant le élections des collectivités locales pour lesquelles il entend invoquer la
dérogation.. » So, this is ONLY for the right to vote and for a limited number of local government
units. Why such a precaution for « a limited number of local government units »?Pour la soi-disant
«commune à facilités» autour de Bruxelles avec un régime juridique spécifique linguistique, pour
protéger la langue néerlandaise dans la partie flamande de la Belgique, et la langue française en
Wallonie. MAIS, nombre élevé de fonctionnaires de l'UE, plus souvent francophones que
néerlandophones, dans les communes de la partie flamande.

The 2nd derogation is restriction to preclude the access to some functions. Art 5 §3 de la directive
dispose que «    Les États membres peuvent disposer que seuls leurs propres ressortissants sont
éligibles aux fonctions de chef, d'adjoint ou de suppléant ou encore de membre du collège directeur
de l'exécutif d'une collectivité locale de base si ces personnes sont élues pour exercer ces fonctions
pendant la durée du mandat  ». It’s possible not to apply some of the Directive rules to the Union
citizens in some situations (= for some elections and/or some functions).Sometimes it’s called “the
French exception”, even if it is applied by several other MS. There is rules in the different MS. There is
MS who not apply any restrictions: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta,
the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. There is sometimes
restriction only for the office of head of the local administration like in Hungary, Poland and
Slovenia. And, restriction also for the office of deputy BUT they can hold the office of member of the
executive committee : Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Italy and Lithuania. There is also
restriction even for the office of member of the executive committee like in Bulgaria, Greece and
Romania.
Cela a conduit à la révision consti 1992. « Sous réserve de réciprocité et selon les modalités prévues
par le TEU signé le 7 février 1992, le D de vote et d'éligibilité aux élections municipales peut ê
accordé aux seuls citoyens de l'Union résidant en Fr. Ces citoyens ne peuvent exercer les fonctions
de maire ou d'adjoint ni participer à la désignation des électeurs sénatoriaux et à l'élection des
sénateurs […] ». Mais, ils peuvent ê mb du Conseil municipal ». Art. 3 al 4 C58 « sont électeurs,
dans les conditions déterminées par la L, tous les N frmajeurs des deux sexes, jouissant de leurs D
civils et politiques ». C consti, 9 avril 1992, décision n°92-308 DC, Maastricht I: « en l'état, l'article
8 B, paragraphe 1, ajouté au traité instituant la Communauté européenne par l'article G de
l'engagement interN soumis au Conseil constitutionnel, est contraire à la Constitution  » =
inconsistent with art. 3, 24 & 72C. And, L consti n°92-554 du 25 juin 1992 to modify the
Constitution adds a new title and four articles dealing with the European Union's pooling of
sovereignty (art. 88-1 to 88-4), including art. 88-3 to make the ratification of the Mastricht Treaty
compatible with the C58 « Sous réserve de réciprocité et selon les modalités prévues par le Traité sur
l'Union européenne signé le 7 février 1992, le droit de vote et d'éligibilité aux élections municipales
peut être accordé aux seuls citoyens de l'Union résidant en France. Ces citoyens ne peuvent exercer
les fonctions de maire ou d'adjoint ni participer à la désignation des électeurs sénatoriaux et à
l'élection des sénateurs […] ».
In spite of these derogations, the transposition of the Directive was difficult, especially in Belgium, Spain,
France, Greece and Sweden. It led the Commission to introduce infringement procedures, one of them
reaching (=atteint) the ECJ, that found that Belgium infringed EU law because of this delay in the transposition
of the 94/80 Directive(ECJ,1998, Commission v. Belgium). In France, the directive was not transposed for the
1995 municipal elections; only in 1998 (L 25 mars 1998). For the 2001 municipal elections, there was
disappointing (=décevant) rate of participation of Union citizens in municipal elections: only 16%.

II - The right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament

At stake, the democratization of the EU institutional system/the reduction of the democratic deficit
and the reality of a EP representing the Union citizens. (= démocratisation du système institutionnel
de l'UE / réduction du déficit démocratique et réalité d'un PE représentant les citoyens de l'Union. T)
This right was conceivable after the shift towards the direct universal suffrage for the election of the
EP members, decided in sept 1976 and applied since the 1979 European elections. This new right to
vote and to stand as a candidate did not imply major changes in national laws since it does not
concern the State power, it is not contrary to traditional constitutional rules(= n'implique pas de
changements majeurs dans les LN puisqu'elle ne concerne pas le pv de l'État, elle n'est pas contraire
aux R consti traditionnelles). And, there is no harmonised/uniform procedure, except the principle of
proportional representation since 2002. Each MS keeps its national procedures, just extended to
Union citizens.

Before the Maastricht T, only some MS accepted that Union citizens from other MS vote for the
election of European MPs: Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium (under conditions), UK. Only 1 MS granted
them the right to stand as a candidate : Italy. As a consequence, for Union citizens residing in
another MS, the only solutions were voting by mail/post or proxy.

A/The modalities of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate

Who are the beneficiaries? Is in Art 3 directive 93/109/EC: right to vote and to stand as a candidate
in elections to the European Parliament in the MS of residence, where « Toute personne qui, au jour
de référence: a) est citoyen de l'Union au sens de l'article 8 paragraphe 1 deuxième alinéa du traité
et b) sans en avoir la nationalité, réunit, par ailleurs, les conditions auxquelles la législation de l'État
membre de résidence subordonne le droit de vote et d'éligibilité de ses ressortissants». Exemple 1:
condition of residence if imposed on nationals. Exemple 2: not deprived of its rights to vote or to
stand as a candidate in its MS of nationality.

Can we vote and stand as a candidate for European elections in 2 MS? Art 4 Directive «1. Les
électeurs communautaires exercent leur droit de vote soit dans l'État membre de résidence, soit dans
l'État membre d'origine. Nul ne peut voter plus d'une fois à la même élection. 2. Nul ne peut se
porter candidat dans plus d'un État membre lors d'une même élection.». Contrary to municipal
election, there is no double vote, for the right to vote as well as for the right to stand as a candidate,
this entails (=implique) cooperation between MS to avoid double or multiple votes. See in France, to
avoid the double vote there is the creation of a central database (= base de données centrale) of
Union citizens choosing to vote in France and an extension of the criminal provision punishing the
double vote.

What formalities? For the right to vote : « 1. A Community voter exercises his right to vote in the MS
of residence if he has expressed the wish to do so. 2. If voting is compulsory in the MS of residence,
Community voters who have expressed the wish to do so shall be obliged to vote  ». PS. Voting is
compulsory in Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Luxembourg. For the right to stand as a
candidate, it’s requires to make a declaration that you are not disqualified from standing as a
candidate and that you are not standing in any other EU country.

B/The derogations
There is 2 kind of derogations. Firstly, from the 1993 Directive: only 1 derogation, restriction of the
right. Then, from the ECJ caselaw : extension of the right.

1/ From the 1993 Directive

The first derogation is a restriction in case of high proportion of Union citizens. It’s possible to
impose to Union citizens a condition of residence of max 5 years for the right to vote or max 10
years for the right to stand as a candidate (et pour le D d’éligibilité c’est max 10 ans). Only
Luxembourg is concerned. There is no provision concerning Belgium, since no consequence on the
linguistic regime of communes. C’est l’article 14 de la directive de 1993 «  Si dans un État membre, à
la date du 1er  janvier 1993, la proportion de citoyens de l'Union, qui y résident sans en avoir la
nationalité et qui ont atteint l'âge de voter, dépasse 20 % de l'ensemble des citoyens de l'Union en
âge de voter et qui y résident, cet État membre peut réserver, en dérogeant aux articles 3, 9 et 10: b)le
droit d'éligibilité aux éligibles communautaires qui résident dans cet État membre pendant une
période minimale qui ne peut pas dépasser dix ans a)le droit de vote aux électeurs communautaires
qui résident dans cet État membre pendant une période minimale qui ne peut pas dépasser cinq
ans ».

2/ From the ECJ caselaw

The 2nd derogation is an extension of the personal scope of application of the right. We have 2
cases.

1 - Inclusion of nationals of a MS residing in its overseas territories (= Inclusion des ressortissants

d'un État membre résidant sur ses territoires d’outre-mer)
ECJ, Eman and Sevinger, 2006. Les citoyens de l'UE résidant en dehors de l'Union peuvent-ils être
exclus du droit de vote et d'éligibilité aux élections au Parlement européen? Un État membre de l'UE
peut-il exclure du droit de vote aux élections européennes certaines catégories de ses propres
ressortissants en raison de leur lieu de résidence ?.This case concerns Dutch nationals residing in
Aruba: Dutch oversea territory. ECJ solution is that «  persons who possess the nationality of a
Member State and who live or reside in a territory which is one of the overseas territory associated
to the Community may rely on the rights conferred on citizens of the Union » (= les P qui possèdent
la nationalité d’un EM et qui vivent ou résident dans un territoire qui fait partie des territoires d'outre-
mer associés à la Communauté peuvent invoquer les D conférés aux citoyens de l’Union).
Otherwise, it is an infringement (=violation) of the principle of equal treatment, without any
objectively justified difference.

2 - extension to non nationals “who have close links to [the MS]” (= extension aux non-
ressortissants qui ont des liens étroits avec les EM)
ECJ, Spain v. UK, 2006. Is a MS entitled to (=habilité à) extend the right to vote in elections to the
European Parliament to nationals of non-member countries resident in Europe(= aux ressortissants de
pays tiers résidant en Europe?) (= concerns residents of Gibraltar: British oversea territory). Here,
there is a chronology, en 1976: l'annexe à l'acte de 1976 relative aux élections européennes interdit
au Royaume-Uni de les organiser en dehors de son propre territoire; pas organisé à Gibraltar. En
1999, CEDH, 1999, Mathews c. Royaume-Uni affirme que cette restriction est une violation de
l'article 3 du Protocole n°1 au ConvEDH: droit de participer aux élections pour choisir la législature.
En 2003, le Royaume-Uni a créé une nouvelle région électorale qui combine Gibraltar avec une
région électorale existante en Angleterre et a créé un registre électoral spécial et a accordé le droit de
vote aux élections européennes aux citoyens de l'Union résidant à Gibraltar et aux citoyens du
Commonwealth satisfaisant à certains critères. et résidant à Gibraltar: les derniers ne sont pas
citoyens de l'UE!

ECJ, Spain v. UK, 2006. Selon l'Espagne, «le traité CE en tant que tel interdit à un État membre
d'accorder aux ressortissants de pays tiers des droits de citoyenneté de l'UE», «ces droits
appartiennent exclusivement aux ressortissants de l'UE». La CJE déclare que «les articles pertinents
du traité CE n'empêchent pas les États membres d'accorder ce droit de vote et de se porter candidat à
certaines personnes qui ont des liens étroits avec eux, autres que leurs propres ressortissants ou
citoyens de l'Union résidant en leur territoire »(= Les art du traité n'empêchent pas les EM d'accorder
ce D de vote et de se porter candidat à certaines P qui ont des liens étroits avec elles, autres que
leurs propres ressortissants ou citoyens de l'Union résidant sur leur territoire). Mais il n'y a plus de
détails sur la signification de «liens étroits»!

Session 10. The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

ECI is a novelty from the Lisbon treaty : « initiative inviting the Commission, within the framework of
its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens of the Union consider that a
legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties » (= initiative invitant
la Commission, dans le cadre de ses compétences, à présenter toute proposition appropriée sur des
Q dans lesquelles les citoyens de l'Union estiment qu'un acte juridique de l'Union est nécessaire aux
fins de la mise en œuvre des traités). It’s art. 1 regulation 2019/788. It’s for EU citizens and there is a
right to support such an initiative (art. 2 regulation 2019/788).

It’s 2 right for EU citizens. It’s the right to support an ECI and it’s the right to create a ECI. It’s another
way to involve (=impliquer) EU citizens in the political aspect of EU and particularly the decision
making process. It’s a mean of participatory democracy (=démocratie participative)) and the
instrument for transnational participatory democracy. It goes further than the petition to the EP. It’s
another way of involvement of Union citizens. It’s direct involvement, not through representatives.
It’s the «  first instrument for transnational participatory democracy  » (European Parliament,
Resolution oct. 2015, 2014/2257(INI)).

Concerning the sources, for the primary law, it’s specific because it’s not listed in art.20 TFEU and not
even mentioned in the EUCFR but in art 24 TFEU. It’s in the same provision as the right to petition
the European Parliament (§2), the right to apply to the Ombudsman (§3), and the right to write the
institutions or bodies in one of the official languages (§4). Also, it’s in Art 11§4 TEU. L’art 24 TFUE
dispose que « Le Parlement européen et le Conseil, statuant par voie de règlements conformément à
la procédure législative ordinaire, arrêtent les dispositions relatives aux procédures et conditions
requises pour la présentation d'une initiative citoyenne au sens de l'article 11 du traité sur l'Union
européenne, y compris le nombre minimum d'États membres dont les citoyens qui la présentent
doivent provenir ». Et l’art 11§4 TEU dispose que « 4. Des citoyens de l'Union, au nombre d'un
million au moins, ressortissants d'un nombre significatif d'États membres, peuvent prendre l'initiative
d'inviter la Commission européenne, dans le cadre de ses attributions, à soumettre une proposition
appropriée sur des questions pour lesquelles ces citoyens considèrent qu'un acte juridique de
l'Union est nécessaire aux fins de l'application des traités. Les procédures et conditions requises pour
la présentation d'une telle initiative sont fixées conformément à l'article 24, premier alinéa, du traité
sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne ».

It’s also in secondary law. In 2019, a new regulation was needed because the ECI of 2011 was
criticized : it’s sets many obstacles, it was too strict and made the ECI almost impossible to do.

Concerning the personal scope of application, is for «  not less than 1 million citizens  ». It’s a
collective right, a right that can be implemented (= mis en oeuvre) only collectively (= the first and
sole one). And, it’s for «  citizens who are nationals of […] MS  ». So, it’s a right granted and
implementable independently of the location of the Union citizen (national MS, other MS, third
country). This right exclude 3rd country members and family members who are not nationals.

Concerning the substantive scope of application, it’s a participation very different from the one
usually organised in the decision-making process of MS. It’s far from a referendum. It’s to propose
new or change existing European law, or even to prevent the adoption of a legal act (Trib., 2017,
Micheal Efler e.a. v. Commission = about Stop TTIP). But, it’s (only) for kind of initiative of the
initiative! (see art. 11(4) TEU = “initiative of inviting the European Commission”!). The ECI doesn’t
replace the petition to the EPI.

I – The ECI mechanism

The conditions and the procedures necessary to initiative or support an ECI is found in the regulation
of 2019. It’s from Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
April 2019 on the ECI OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 55 who establishes a quite complex procedure, with
various conditions and steps. It’s to strike a balance (= pour trouver un équilibre) and in order to
avoid an excessive/abusive use of ECI and to preserve the Union citizens’ right. The procedure is
complex because of its various steps and conditions : to support is not difficult, but it’s more
difficult to initiate. The commission that is involves in ECIs has other things to do and it could be
counterproductive for EU law. And, it’s to preserve the Union Citizens right it should not be too
difficult. (= La commission impliquée dans les ICE a autre chose à faire et cela pourrait ê contre-
productif pour le DUE. Et c’est pour préserver le D des citoyens de l’Union que cela ne devrait pas ê
trop difficile).

Before, there was conditions and procedure to regulate the use but not to strict to keep this right
concrete. That’s why the 2d regulation was needed. The first balance in 2011 created too strict
conditions (more about the 1 part of the balance) so in 2019 we wanted to make a better
preservation of the EU citizens right. So, a new balance was found. How to find the new balance ?
There is 4 steps.
Step I. Creation of a « group of organizers »
What’s necessary? The creation of a group of organizers whom will launch the citizen initiative. It’s
compulsory to be a group. Organizers must form a “group of organizers”. In 2011, it was called the
« citizens’ committee ». There is conditions concerning the organizers. First, of at least (= au -)seven
EU citizens residing in seven # MS:it needs to be representative of at least 7 # MS. Why? To avoid
that a group of nationals would try to make a text becoming law at the EU level because they can’t
have such text at the national level (= Pour éviter qu’un groupe de ressortissants essaie de faire en
sorte qu’un texte devienne une L au niveau de l’UE parce qu’ils ne peuvent pas avoir un tel texte au
niveau N). It must be in the European interest. And, organizers must be of the age to vote in
European Parliament elections. The 1st condition is already difficult to achieve. 


Step II. Registration (=enregistrement) of the proposed initiative step

Before they can start to collect statements of support from signatories, the proposed initiative must be
registered by the Commission through a form annexed to the Regulation (= annex II) and with a set
of conditions to be fulfilled.

a form annexed to the Regulation requires a short presentation of the ECI. « 1. Le titre de l’initiative,
en 100 caractères maximum; [here 66/78] 2. Les objectifs de l'initiative sur lesquels la Commission
est invitée à agir, en 1 100 caractères maximum sans espaces; Le groupe d'organisateurs peut fournir
une annexe sur le sujet, les objectifs et le contexte de l'initiative, en 5 000 caractères maximum
sans espaces; Le groupe d'organisateurs peut fournir des informations complémentaires sur le sujet,
les objectifs et le contexte de l'initiative. Il peut également, s'il le souhaite, soumettre un projet d'acte
juridique; 3. Les dispositions des traités jugées pertinentes par le groupe d'organisateurs pour
l'action proposée; 4. Les noms, prénoms, adresses postales, nationalités et dates de naissance de
sept membres du groupe d'organisateurs résidant dans sept # EM en indiquant spécifiquement le
représentant et le suppléant ainsi que leurs adresses électroniques et numéros de téléphone; […]».
So, it’s require a title for the initiative : only a hundred characters, a presentation of the objectives of
the initiative(in 2011you only have 1500 characters to explain your initiatives ,it was the only
presentation for people who wanted to support it on the website of the ECI, and, 2019 enabled more
elements ) and they can make an annex or can propose a draft of a legal act if the ECI aims at the
adoption of a directive, they have also to indicate the provisions of the treaties considered relevant /
the legal basis of the legal act they want the commission to propose, identities the organizers.

And, there is a set of conditions to be fulfilled for registration. In order to be registered, the proposed
initiative must comply with the conditions set out in Art 4(2) of the Regulation. It is to the
Commission to appreciate the compliance:it’s the «  filtering capacity  » of the Commission. If the
conditions are not fulfilled, the Commission will refuse the registration. There is possible complaint
to the Ombudsman and referral (=renvoi) to the ECJ. If the conditions are fulfilled, the ECI is
registered on the online register, and open to signatures. If not all the content of the ECI fulfills the
conditions, partial registration is possible and has been created in the regulation of 2019.

In order to be registered, the proposed initiative must comply to 5 conditions. First, to have a group
of organizers with a contact person designated. Then, if relevant, a legal entity can be created for the
purpose of managing the initiative, designated organizers will be mandated to act on behalf of the
legal entity. And, none of the parts of the initiative manifestly outside the framework (=cadre) of the
commission’s power (= aucune des parties de l’initiative ne sort manifestement du cadre du pouvoir
de la commission). to submit a proposal for a legal act of the union for the purpose of implementing
the treaties, ECI can be proposed only if it’s about a topic that falls within the framework of the
commission’s power. Exemple : on the field of the PESC, an ECI can’t be proposed. And, of course, in
a filed in which the EU doesn’t have a competence. Also, the initiative must not be manifestly
abusive, frivolous (=frivole, futile) or vexatious (=vexatoire). Finally, the initiative is not manifestly
contrary to the valus of the Union as set out in Art 2 TFEU and right enshrined in the CFREU.

A high rate of proposed initiatives are not registered because of those conditions. But, since R. 2019,
there is an easing (=assouplissement) of the 3rd condition. It’s easier for organizers to have the ECI
registered because of the 3rd condition : there is new modalities to reduce the number of refusals of
registration, a possibility to « save » the ECI before it is declared inadmissible, a possibility of partial
registration by the Commission. If it’s not fulfilled, the ECI can be saved before it’s declared
inadmissible or the commission can decide a partial registration. Before 2019, the commission used
this power of registration to avoid some ECI to go further. 


Step III. Collection of the statements of support

Organisers have 12 months to gather (=rassembler) the support needed to reach the thresholds
(=seuil) required. It was judged too harsh (=sévère), it’s still 12 months but they eased the condition
since R.2019. The can start from a chosen date (but no later than 6 months from the registration).
They need to campaign about it so 12 months were too short, so now you can organize, campaign
about it and then open the collection of statements of supports (signatures). Due to there sanitary
crisis, the time of collection have been extended.

Who can support ? any EU citizen of the age to vote in European Parliament elections. And, «  MS
may set the minimum age entitling to support an initiative at 16 years » (R. 2019). Supporters have to
come from at least ¼ of the MS = at least 7 MS to prevent a decision from being taken by only
nationals from 1 MS. In each MS concerned, there is a minimum number of signatories per MS. It
can’t be circumvent (=contourné). Exemple : in France it’s at least 55 574. So, it expresses a commun
European interest and it’s not used to serve only a national interest or a « community » interest. Art.
7§2 R 2011 «  signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens […]. Those
minimum numbers shall correspond to the number of the Members of the European Parliament
elected in each Member State, multiplied by 750 » Figures set out […] in Annex I of R 2019.

How to give one’s support? = signatories can give their support in paper form or online and you only
give a few information (name, birth...). Statements of support (=déclaration de soutient) have to be
certified by the MS to check the minimum number of signatories per member state. « Signatory shall
be counted in his or her MS of nationality, irrespective of the place where the statement of support
was signed by the signatory » (since R. 2109). 


Step IV. Decision of the commission

Once the number of 1 million certified signatures is reached, the signatures must submitted to the
Commission. And, the organisers meet the Commission to provide detailed information. And, there is
a public hearing at the European Parliament. Then, the Commission has 6 months to examine the ECI
(since R 2019; before it was 3 months) and adopts a communication about its legal and political
conclusions and the follow-up of the ECI. Exemple: Communication from the Commission on the
European Citizens' Initiative "Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a
commodity!“, COM/2014/0177 final, 19/03/2014. It’s not possible to make a annulment (=recours en
carence).

Even if the number of 1 million is reached, there is no obligation for the Commission to give effect
to the ECIs but only an obligation to state reasons(=O de motivation). According to the treaties, the
Commission is only «  invited  » by the Union citizens «  to submit any appropriate proposal on
matters  » (art. 11 TEU). If the Commission decides to give effect to the ECI, it is expected that the
Commission will adopt some texts (legal acts) or, not constitutional act (not for an amendment of the
treaties/primary law) or, not necessarily a legislative act this is to say any legal act of secondary law
like legislative act, non-legislative act, even international agreement (Trib., 2017, Micheal Efler e.a. v.
Commission).

But, there is no legal obligation for the Commission to adopt legal acts. There is wide margin of
discretion for the Commission! The Commission has an important «  filtering capacity  » at 2 stages
that is to say at the registration stage and at the decision stage (to give effect / the follow-up to the
ECI). According to some commentators, ECI is not a power of initiative for Union citizens but only a
power of impulsion or a power of stimulation (J. Pertek).

II – The implementation of the ECI (= la mise en oeuvre de l’ICE).

Is there progressive lack of interest vis-a-vis the ECI? A revival with R 2019? We can see the number
of ECI submitted to registration and number of ECI registered. In 2012, there was 23 proposals of ECI
submitted (16 registered), in 2012: 13 (9 registered), in 2014 9 (5 registered),in 2015: 6 (6 registered),
in 2017: 9 (9 registered), in 2018: 9 (7 registered) ; in 2019: 19 (16 registered) , in 2020 (till 26 Nov.)
11 (7 registered).

A/ A relatively high rate of refusal of registration

At the date of 26 Nov. 2020, out of 99 ECI registration requests, 75 were registered, 24 faced a
refusal of registration = 24,24 % of the ECI not registered (= declared inadmissible by the
Commission) because (at least) one of the 5 requirements is not fulfilled. In practice, it is always the
same requirement/condition that is problematic: the Condition 3, that the initiative «  does not
manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act
of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties » (= ne sort manifestement pas du cadre
des compétences de la Commission pour présenter une proposition d’acte juridique de l’Union aux
fins de la mise en œuvre des traités). We can take an exemple of refusal with the ECI about the
Brexit, there is no power of the commission to propose a legal act to propose a referendum about
Brexit. There is the proposed ECI «  EU wide referendum whether the European Citizens want the
United Kingdom to remain or to leave! » who was proposed in 2019. The registration was refused
because «  The proposed citizens' initiative falls manifestly outside the framework of the
Commission's powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of
implementing the Treaties » and because « there is no legal basis in the Treaties which would allow
for the adoption of a legal act relating to the decision-making process within a MQ in connection
with the notification of that MS' intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Art 50 TEU ».

Also, in 2 cases, the ECJ decided to annul the refusals of the Commission.
 What
is new
since
the EiF of the 2019 Regulation? Still filtering role of the K, but less Manichean vision. In fact, the
Commission informs the organisers that their initiative seems to be inadmissible, and they have the
possibility to amend, withdraw or maintain their ECI. And there is a possible partial registration: only
the parts of the ECI that are fall within «  the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a
proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties ».

B/A low rate of initiatives reaching the required number of signatures

At the date of 26 Nov. 2020, among the 75 ECI registered and only 6 reached the required number of
signatures that is to say 8% (+ 1 under verification), 19 were withdrawn, 33 did not reach the number
of signature in the required period of 12 months, 12 still ongoing.

It’s due to, in particular, the difficulty for the organisers to translate the ECI into all the EU official
languages in max 12 months(reason why the 2019 R provides for a translation done by the
Commission), the ignorance of the Union citizens concerning the ECI (in the 2019 R, there is a
provision concerning the « communication » the Commission has to develop to make the ECI better
known by the Union citizens), the fact that MS are not always very diligent in the certification of the
supporting statements, the cost/organisation required/needed. Exemple : “Right2Water” initiated by
the European Federation of Public Service Unions' (EPSU) + 140 000 € Exemple : “One of Us”
supported by a network of religious communities, and by the Holy See + 159 219 €

C/ The uncertain effect of the « successful » initiatives

Only 6 ECI reached the 1 million signatures, it’s called « successful » ECI. It’s true from a quantitative
point of view but it is more questionable from a qualitative point of view. The 4 first one «one of us»,
have been answered by the commission : actions taken ? The commission adopts a communication,
deciding if it will give effects to the initiative or not, setting out the actions in intends to take in
response to the initiative. (= les mesures prises ? La commission adopte une communication,
décidant si elle donnera ou non des effets à l'initiative, énonçant les actions qu'elle entend
entreprendre en réponse à l’initiative) But, there is a broad margin of discretion and this is no more
on formal conditions but a political opportunity. Not all the aspects of the ECI have been answered,
but legal aspects were taken on some points of the ECI. « One of us » don’t receive a good answer,
like «  Stop vivisection  ». But, for the ECI named «  Right2Water  », there is a better answer with
various action planned, legislative action : revision of an existing directive on drinking water and
creation of regulation. For the ECI named «Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment
from toxic pesticide »  there was legislative act but only a partial answer. 

 







Conclusion.
The follow-
up of
successful ECI are not always what the organizers wanted. There is only 2 legislatives actions for 4
successful ECI. There is a possibility of complain to the Ombudsman (a complain for stop vivisection
but said the commission is not obliged to take a legal action but must motivate it choice so no
maladministration) and the ECJ.

Complain to the Ombudsman about Stop Vivisection

The complainants, the organisers of the initiative, considered that the Commission had given an
inadequate response to the initiative since the aim of the initiative “Stop Vivisection” was «  to
abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. In her 18
April 2017 decision  », the Ombudsman explained that «  While the Commission is not obliged to
make a corresponding legislative proposal, it must, among other things  », «  set out in a
communication: its legal and political conclusions on the citizens’ initiative, the action it intends to
take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking that action ». Assessment of the Ombudsman « the
Commission has complied with its duty to explain, in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner,
its position and political choices regarding the objectives of the ECI ‘Stop Vivisection ». There is no
maladministration by the Commission. . Political assessment by the Commission, thus there is an
obligation to state the reasons of its decision concerning the follow-up but no obligation to make a
corresponding legislative proposal.

Referal to the ECJ about One of Us

Action from the organizers of the ECI « One of Us » against the communication of the Commission.
General Court, 2018, European Citizens'Initiative One of Us, As regards the substance, the General
Court recalled that the Treaties have conferred upon the Commission a near-monopoly on legislative
initiative. The exercise of the right to the European citizens’ initiative cannot require the Commission
to submit a proposal for a legal act. The Commission’s communication is sufficiently reasoned. The
Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment. There is a control of the « manifest error
of assessment only ». Since it is a political decision / an evaluation of the political opportunity ECJ,
19 Dec. 2019, Puppinck e.a. / Commission : appeal confirmed the General Court reasoning.
 Session 11 . Citizenship of the EU and Brexit

Introduction. The right of withdrawal from the Union (= The right of withdrawal from the Union)
Before the Lisbon Treaty Q: is it legal to withdraw from the EC/EU? There was uncertainty. Since the
Lisbon Treaty, there is art 50 TEU. «  1. Tout EM peut décider, conformément à ses R consti, de se
retirer de l’Union. 2. L’EM qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen. À la
lumière des orientations du Conseil européen, l'Union négocie et conclut avec cet État un accord
fixant les modalités de son retrait, en tenant compte du cadre de ses relations futures avec l'Union.
Cet accord est négocié conformément à l'article 218, paragraphe 3, du TFUE. Il est conclu au nom
de l'Union par le Conseil, statuant à la majorité qualifiée, après approbation du Parlement
européen. 3. Les traités cessent d'ê applicables à l'État concerné à partir de la date d'entrée en
vigueur de l'accord de retrait ou, à défaut, deux ans après la notification visée au paragraphe 2,
sauf si le Conseil européen, en accord avec l’EM concerné, décide à l'unanimité de proroger ce
délai. 4. Aux fins des paragraphes 2 et 3, le membre du Conseil européen et du Conseil représentant
l'EM qui se retire ne participe ni aux délibérations ni aux décisions du Conseil européen et du
Conseil qui le concernent. La majorité qualifiée se définit conformément à l'article 238, paragraphe
3, point b), du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne. 5. Si l'État qui s'est retiré de
l'Union demande à adhérer à nouveau, sa demande est soumise à la procédure visée à l'article
49. »
 23 june
2016 :
referendum
in the UK.
The Q was
«  S h o u l d
the United
Kingdom
remain a
member of
European
Union or leave the European Union? ».

We can make a
chronology of
events
As from that date (=à partir de cette date), what rules/law will apply for the relationship EU/UK?
InterN law (= general interN law or EU-UK agreement(s)= accords). Whose citizens especially
concerned by the impact of the Brexit? Both UK nationals residing within the other EU MS and EU
citizens from other MS residing within the UK. How many persons are concerned? More than 4
million citizens in 2017 (3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.2 million UK citizens in the EU).
The consequences of the referendum are «  Brexodus  ». It’s a compound of "Brexit" and "exodus,"
who refers to the prediction made by some observers that the United Kingdom's exit from the
European Union (EU) will coincide with numerous individuals and corporations fleeing the British
Isles (= un composé de «Brexit» et «d'exode», fait référence à la prédiction faite par certains
observateurs que la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne (UE) coïncidera avec de
nombreux individus et entreprises fuyant les îles britanniques). In 2016, 117 000 citizens of other EU
MS left the UK, an increase of 36% over the previous year. In June 2019, the net migration from the
EU (Union citizens entering the UK – UK nationals entering the EU) felt to 48 000 (from about 200
000 in 2015) Why? because of the expected consequences of the Brexit, or the doubts it creates for
Union citizens.

I – The Brexit, an opportunity to exercise the EU citizens’ rights

Which Union citizens’ rights have been mobilized in the context of the Brexit? The right to apply to
the European Ombudsman (A), the right to petition the EP (B) and the right to organize and/or
support a ECI (C).

A/ The right to apply to the European Ombudsman (= Le D de s'adresser au Médiateur euro)

There is 15 decisions from the Ombudsman often about the access to documents relating to the
Brexit and its consequences.

Initiative of the European Ombudsman is in favor of transparency in the negotiations relating to the
withdrawal of the UK. Many documents were made available.

B/ The right to petition the EP

The EP made EU citizens’ rights their priority in the negotiations of the withdrawal agreement, and for
its consent. We can see it in art 50 TFEU «  2. A MS which decides to withdraw shall notify the
European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council,
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements
for its withdrawal (=fixant les modalités de son retrait), taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)
TFEU. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority,
after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament ». Exemple: Débat des députés européens, 14
janvier 2020, sur la mise en œuvre et le suivi des dispositions relatives aux D des citoyens dans
l’accord de retrait britannique. Exemple: résolution du Parlement européen du 15 janvier 2020 sur la
mise en œuvre et le suivi des dispositions relatives aux droits des citoyens dans l'accord de retrait.
Exemple: Consentement du PE sur l'accord de retrait: 29 janvier 2020.

C/ The right to organize and/or support a ECI

Union citizens decided to use the ECI mechanism to try to counter the Brexit and its consequences.
There is 3 ECIs concerning the Brexit in general : «  EU wide referendum whether the European
Citizens want the United Kingdom to remain or to leave! », « British friends-stay with us in EU » and
«  Stop Brexit  ». All three were refused at the stage of registration, because it did not fulfilled the
condition relating to « the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act
of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties » and because « there is no legal basis in
the Treaties which would allow for the adoption of a legal act relating to the decision-making process
within a MS in connection with the notification of that MS' intention to withdraw from the Union
pursuant to Art 50 TEU » (=il n'y a pas de base juridique dans les traités qui permettrait l'adoption
d'un acte juridique relatif au processus décisionnel dans un EM dans le cadre de la notification de
l'intention de cet EM de se retirer de l'Union conformément à l'art 50 TUE).

There is 3 ECIs concerning more specifically the issue of the citizenship in case of the withdrawal of
a MS (not expressly the UK / the Brexit): « EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in Spite
of jus soli and jus sanguinis », « Retaining European Citizenship » and « Permanent European Union
Citizenship In your opinion ». What happened to these ECIs? There were registered but not enough
statements of support.

Concerning the Commission decision of 22.3.2017 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled « EU
Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in Spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis », C(2017) 2001
final, commission says that «Statements of support should be collected for this proposed citizens'
initiative, inasmuch (=dans la mesure où) as it aims at (=elle vise) a proposal for a legal act of the
Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties in the field of rights of third-country nationals
residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of
residence in other Member States of the EU and in particular conferring certain similar rights to those
linked to citizenship of the Union on citizens of a state that has withdrawn from the Union pursuant
to Article 50 TEU ». (= une proposition d'acte juridique de l'Union aux fins de la mise en œuvre des
traités dans le domaine des droits des ressortissants de pays tiers résidant légalement dans un État
membre, y compris les conditions de libre circulation et de séjour dans d'autres États membres de
l'UE et en particulier conférant certains droits similaires à ceux liés à la citoyenneté de l'Union aux
citoyens de un État qui s'est retiré de l'Union conformément à l'art 50 du TUE).

Concerning the Commission decision of 22.3.2017 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled
« Retaining European Citizenship », Commission says that « A legal act of the Union for the purpose
of implementing the Treaties can be adopted in the field of rights of third -country nationals residing
legally in a MS, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in other
MS of the EU. Such a legal act may therefore confer certain similar rights to those linked to CEU on
citizens of a state that has withdrawn from the Union pursuant to Art 50 TEU. Moreover, rights of EU
citizens who have already exercised their freedom of movement prior to the withdrawal of a Member
State from the Union can be safeguarded in an agreement pursuant to Article 50 TEU » (= Un acte
juridique de l'Union aux fins de la mise en œuvre des traités peut ê adopté dans le domaine des D
des ressortissants de pays tiers résidant légalement dans un EM, y compris les conditions régissant la
liberté de circulation et de séjour dans d'autres EM de l'UE. Un tel acte juridique peut donc conférer
certains D similaires à ceux liés à la CEU aux citoyens d'un État qui s'est retiré de l'Union
conformément à l'art 50 TUE. En outre, les D des citoyens de l'UE qui ont déjà exercé leur libre
circulation avant le retrait d'un EM de l'Union peuvent ê sauvegardés dans un accord conformément
à l'art 50 TUE).

Concerning the Commission Decision of 18 July 2018 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled
« Permanent European Union Citizenship », Commission says that « A legal act of the Union for the
purpose of implementing the Treaties can be adopted in the field of rights of third-country nationals
residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of
residence in other Member States of the EU. While such a legal act may not confer the right to vote
or to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament on citizens of a state that has
withdrawn from the Union pursuant to Article 50 TEU, it may confer certain rights similar to rights of
citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States on citizens
of such state. Moreover, rights of EU citizens, who have already exercised their freedom of movement
prior to the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union, and their family members, can be
safeguarded in an agreement pursuant to Article 50 TEU ».

What could have been the follow-up of such ECIs? Cf Commission Press release, 22 March 2017
«  Les initiatives européennes appellent la Commission à protéger le statut et les droits de la
citoyenneté européenne, dans le contexte du retrait du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne. […]
Bien que la Commission ne puisse pas proposer de législation secondaire visant à octroyer la
citoyenneté de l'UE aux personnes physiques qui ne possèdent pas la nationalité d'un État membre
de l'Union, les droits des citoyens de l'UE au Royaume-Uni et les droits des citoyens britanniques
dans l'UE après le retrait du Royaume-Uni sera au cœur des prochaines négociations  »Art 50. La
Commission fera tout son possible pour empêcher que les citoyens de l'UE soient utilisés comme
monnaie d'échange dans les négociations avec le Royaume-Uni »

II – The Brexit, an impact on EU citizens to be regulate

The Brexit is a national decision, but it has various consequences for Union citizens especially for
UK nationals residing in other MS and nationals of other MS residing in the UK. But not only!

A/The consequences of the withdrawal of a MS on Union citizenship

1 - For the nationals of the “withdrawing MS”
The consequence of the withdrawal is a loss of the Union citizenship, loss of their rights as Union
citizens. In every case ? No, except if they have the nationality of another MS! Does it mean that
they lose all of rights Union citizens have? No, it depends on the personal scope of the various rights.
Exemple: not the case for «  administrative  » rights granted to Union citizens and residents, or to
«  every person  ». And, it depends on the content of the withdrawal agreement/the result of the
negotiations.

2 - For the Union citizens from other MS

Do they lose their Union citizens’ rights? What is the consequence? There is a reduction of the scope
of application of their Union citizens’ rights, a reduction of the territorial scope of application.
Exemple: rights to move and reside freely(no more within the State that withdraws) Exemple right to
vote and to stand as candidate for municipal and EP elections (no more within the State that
withdraws). Exemple: right to consular protection(no more by the MS that withdraws). Also, there is a
reduction of the personal scope of application Exemple: ECIs(no more with the nationals of the MS
that withdraws).

For which of the Union citizens’ rights is the impact of the Brexit/withdrawal the most significant? The
right to reside freely in the territory of the withdrawing State. Why? because of the many rights arising
from it. For the Union citizen itself, but also for his/her family; concerning his/her job, his/her studies,
his/her retirement pension, his/her social insurance, etc. Through the right to freely reside, there is
various social rights extended. In consequence, it’s at the heart of the negotiations on the withdrawal
agreement! (= phase 1).

Concerning the impact of Brexit on the Union citizens’ rights, there is issue negotiated during Phase
1 of the negotiations. And, the first of the 3 issues discussed in this phase of the negotiations.

B/The consequences of the negotiated withdrawal of the UK

Concerning the personal scope (art. 10 of the agreement on the withdrawal), it’s concern Union
citizens and UK nationals having exercised their right to freely reside in the territory of the UK /
another MS before the end of the transition period and in which they continue to reside thereafter.
And, it’s concern also « Frontier workers » and Family members of the Union citizens or UK national
of frontier worker, under conditions.
Concerning the substantive scope (concerning the right to move and reside freely), the principle is
the maintenance of the rights of these EU citizens. The right of entry and the right of exit remain,
without any visa (art. 14). As a consequence, the UK is on the list of third countries whose nationals
do not need a visa (regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10
April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806)). But, it’s possible to ask a visa for family members
joining a Union citizen or UK national. Also, the right of residence remains (art. 13) and the right of
permanent residence remains (art. 15) under the conditions of directive 2004/38/EC. But, the host
State may require Union citizens or UK nationals, their respective family members and other persons,
who reside in its territory in accordance with the required conditions, to apply for a new residence
status and a document evidencing such status (art. 18) (+ provisions on rights of workers +
recognition of professional qualifications + provisions on the coordination of social security systems,
etc.).

There is guarantees. Article 159: creation of an independent authority called «The Authority» with
powers equivalent to those of the European Commission to conduct inquiries on its own initiative
concerning the alleged breached of Part 2 by the administrative authorities of the UK. It’s to receive
complaints from Union citizens and their family members for the purpose of conducting inquiries.
And, there is the possibility, following such complaints, to bring a legal action before a competent
court or tribunal in the UK in an appropriate judicial procedure with a view to seeking an adequate
remedy. Article 165 (1)(a): creation of a specialised Committee on citizens’ rights who shall assess
(=doit évaluer) , no earlier than 8 years after the end of the transition period, the functioning of the
Authority, and may decide that the UK may abolish the Authority (art. 159(3)).

What about the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland? The answer is in the Protocol On
Ireland/Northern Ireland, to the withdrawal agreement.