Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 20 [Union Citizenship]

(ex-Article 17 TEC)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary

Part of the book series: Springer Commentaries on International and European Law ((SCIEL))

  • 1752 Accesses

Abstract

The provisions on EU citizenship have been introduced in EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht (Articles 8 to 8c EC). These provisions have been subject to some minor revisions by the subsequent Treaties of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007). The Treaty of Amsterdam clarified that citizenship of the Union “shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship” while by the Treaty of Lisbon Union citizenship was regulated not only in the TFEU (Articles 20 to 25) but additionally in the TEU (Articles 3 and 9 TEU), thereby emphasising the high symbolic and inspirational value of this concept.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the first indent of the EEC Treaty Preamble of 1957 and now the ninth indent of the preamble of the TEU and Article 1.2 TEU.

  2. 2.

    Of course, mercantilism as a school of economic thought is long passé but nonetheless the practice of trade negotiations and the actual behaviour of states in international trade relations were long strongly influenced by this philosophy in the first decades of European integration and continue to be so up to these days.

  3. 3.

    To a certain extent, this struggle between a governmental and an individualistic approach towards trade relations reflects the contraposition between the prevailing French and German philosophies in this field. As is well-known, the former has long been (and to a certain extent continues to be) informed by the idea of “planification”, the conviction that a wise central bureaucracy should be the main architect of the trade infrastructure while the German ordo-liberal model, conceived mainly by Alfred Müller-Armack and Walter Eucken and afterwards strongly advocated by legal philosophers such as Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann emphasises more the initiative by the individual.

  4. 4.

    See Giegerich (2015), para 14 (“auf Zuwachs angelegt”).

  5. 5.

    For this expression, see O’Leary (1999).

  6. 6.

    See Rabenschlag (2009), p. 50 et seq. who, as to these roots, refers to the concept of “integration through law”, to the various efforts to democratise the EEC and to the attempt to devise a collective identity of nationals of the MS. On the development of Union citizenship, see also Kadelbach (2014), para 4 et seq. and Tryfonidou (2016).

  7. 7.

    See Hilpold (2014b), para 98.

  8. 8.

    See Fischer (1997), p. 247.

  9. 9.

    See Kotalakidis (2000) and Hilpold (2014b), p. 35.

  10. 10.

    See Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 3.

  11. 11.

    Case 48/65, Lütticke (ECJ 1 March 1966) p. 210.

  12. 12.

    See Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 7–8, with further references.

  13. 13.

    Para 15 of the final communiqué.

  14. 14.

    See the Final communiqué of the Paris Summit (9/10 December 1974), para 11.

  15. 15.

    Bull. EC, Supplement 1/76.

  16. 16.

    See Joint Declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, O.J. C 103/1 (1977).

  17. 17.

    See Draft Treaty establishing the European Union, O.J. C 77/33 (1984).

  18. 18.

    Report from the ad hoc Committee on a People’s Europe (1985), para 2.

  19. 19.

    Article 2 No. 4 of Council Decision 87/327/EEC, adopting the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), O.J. L 166/20 (1987).

  20. 20.

    See Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 7.

  21. 21.

    Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 7, referring to Case 242/87, Commission v Council (ECJ 30 May 1989) para 29.

  22. 22.

    D’Oliveira (1995), p. 82.

  23. 23.

    See Weiler (1996).

  24. 24.

    See Duff (1994), p. 29.

  25. 25.

    Everling (1992), p. 241 et seq.

  26. 26.

    Isensee (1996) (“Missgriff”); Isensee speaks in this context also of “more illusion than reality” (“mehr Schein als Sein”), p. 95.

  27. 27.

    See Reich (2001).

  28. 28.

    Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.

  29. 29.

    See in this sense Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 26.

  30. 30.

    Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 26.

  31. 31.

    See Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 15.

  32. 32.

    See Cases 2 BvR 2134/92 and 2 BvR 2159/92, In Re Maastricht, BVerfGE 89, 155, p. 17. This translation is based on the translation by Wegen et al., 33 I.L.M. 388 (March, 1994).

  33. 33.

    See Hilpold (2008), p. 11 et seq.; Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 3.

  34. 34.

    See also Hailbronner (2004), pp. 2185–2189 and Tomuschat (2000), p. 451: “the requirement that a situation must come within the scope of application of the EC Treaty means very little and provides almost no guidance. It has become clear from the jurisprudence of the Court that almost anything can become enmeshed in the logic of freedom of movement to the extent that it tends either to facilitate or to hamper the full exercise of that right.”

  35. 35.

    Case C-299/14, Garcia Nieto and others (ECJ 25 February 2016).

  36. 36.

    Case C-333/13, Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (ECJ 11 November 2014).

  37. 37.

    Case C-67/14, Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and other (ECJ 15 September 2015).

  38. 38.

    See Iliopoulou-Penot (2016), p. 1016.

  39. 39.

    See Haag, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 20 AEUV para 12.

  40. 40.

    See Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 31.

  41. 41.

    See Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 32; Kolonovits, in Mayer and Stöger (2010), Article 20 AEUV para 8; Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 6; Haag, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 20 AEUV para 16.

  42. 42.

    See Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, O.J. C 191/98 (1992).

  43. 43.

    See Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 38; Kolonovits, in Mayer and Stöger (2010), Article 20 AEUV para 10.

  44. 44.

    See Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 26.

  45. 45.

    Case C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti (ECJ 7 July 1992) para 11.

  46. 46.

    See Case C-135/08, Rottmann (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 23; see also Kochenov (2013), p. 132.

  47. 47.

    Case C-200/02, Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen (ECJ 19 October 2004) para 39–40. In the following Ireland changed her citizen law due to the consequences the Zhu and Chen case revealed when the jus soli principle is combined with Union citizenship.

  48. 48.

    Case C-135/08, Rottmann (ECJ 2 March 2010).

  49. 49.

    See Hilpold (2016a).

  50. 50.

    Case C-221/17, Tjebbes and Othres v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (ECJ 12 March 2019).

  51. 51.

    Ibid, para 40.

  52. 52.

    See Hilpold (2014a).

  53. 53.

    See Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 11.

  54. 54.

    Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 11.

  55. 55.

    See Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 30; Haag, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 20 AEUV para 14; Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 11. Critical in this regard Kolonovits, in Mayer and Stöger (2010), Article 20 AEUV para 13, for whom an explicit provision in the treaties for such an extension is required. That legal persons could rely on the provisions on Union citizenship is, instead, categorically excluded by Lang, in Tizzano (2014), Article 20 TFUE, p. 494. In this sense also Heselhaus, in Pechstein et al. (2017), Article 20 TFEU, para 30.

  56. 56.

    See i.e. Joined Cases C-64/97 and C-65/97, Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet (ECJ 9 June 1997) para 23; Case C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State (ECJ 2 October 2003) para 26; Case C 192-05, Tas-Hagen and R. A. Tas (ECJ 26 October 2006) para 23; Case C-499/06, Halina Nerkowska (ECJ 22 May 2008) para 25; Case C-434/09, McCarthy (ECJ 18 December 2014) para 55 et seq.; Case C-499/06, Nerkoska (ECJ 22 May 2008) para 25 and Case C-434/09, McCarthy (ECJ 5 May 2011).

  57. 57.

    See Hatje, in Schwarze (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 12.

  58. 58.

    See Haag, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 20 AEUV para 21. As Haag rightly states, explicit duties for Union citizens could be introduced only via a formal amendment to the TFEU based on Article 48 TEU and not under Article 25.2 TFEU as this provision mentions only the introduction of additional rights. For the conditions, limits and duties inherent to Union citizenship see Nic Shuibhne (2015).

  59. 59.

    Magiera, in Streinz (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 34.

  60. 60.

    Case C-214/94, Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Opinion by GA Léger of 14 November 1995) para 63.

  61. 61.

    Case C-168/91, Konstantinidis (ECJ 30 March 1993) para 46.

  62. 62.

    Case C-168/91, Konstantinidis (Opinion of GA La Pergola of 9 December 1992).

  63. 63.

    Joined Cases C-64/97 and C-65/97, Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet (ECJ 9 June 1997) para 23.

  64. 64.

    See Craig and de Búrca (2003), p. 756.

  65. 65.

    Case C-193/94, Sofia Skanavi and Konstantin Chryssanthakopoulos (ECJ 29 February 1996) para 2.

  66. 66.

    Case C-274/96, Bickel and Franz (ECJ 24 November 1998). For a confirmation of the principles set out in Bickel and Franz, see Case C-322/13, Grauel Rüffer/Katerina Pkorná (ECJ 27 March 2014). See, concerning this latter case, Hilpold (2014a).

  67. 67.

    See Case C-274/96, Bickel and Franz (Opinion of GA Francis Jacobs of 29 February 1996) para 32.

  68. 68.

    Case C-85/96, Martinez Sala (ECJ 17 May 1998).

  69. 69.

    See Tomuschat (2000).

  70. 70.

    See the critical remarks by Hailbronner (2004), p. 2188, who qualified the reference by the Court to the concept of Union citizenship leading to a prohibition of non-discrimination also in the context of non-economic free movement as a “petitio principii”. The European Commission even wanted to derive a general right of free movement from Union citizenship but the ECJ was not prepared to go as far.

    See also Tomuschat (2000), p. 457: “It has become clear from the jurisprudence of the Court that almost anything can become enmeshed in the logic of freedom of movement to the extent that it tends either to facilitate or to hamper the full exercise of that right.”

  71. 71.

    Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.

  72. 72.

    Case C-85/96, Martinez Sala (Opinion of GA La Pergola of 1 July 1997) para 20.

  73. 73.

    Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 46.

  74. 74.

    Case 197/86, Steven Malcolm Brown (ECJ 21 June 1988).

  75. 75.

    On the EU education policy with particular reference to Union citizenship (and its predecessors) see Hilpold (1995, 2008, 2011).

  76. 76.

    Case C-138/02, Collins (ECJ 23 March 2004) para 58.

  77. 77.

    Case C-138/02, Collins (ECJ 23 March 2004) para 53

  78. 78.

    Case C-138/02, Collins (ECJ 23 March 2004) para 69.

  79. 79.

    Case C-138/02, Collins (ECJ 23 March 2004) para 72.

  80. 80.

    Case C-456/02, Michel Trojani (ECJ 7 September 2004) para 44.

  81. 81.

    Case C-456/02, Michel Trojani (ECJ 7 September 2004) para 45. This jurisprudence started with Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 42–43.

  82. 82.

    See Sander (2005), p. 1018.

  83. 83.

    Case C-413/99, Baumbast (ECJ 17 September 2002) para 84.

  84. 84.

    Kostakopoulou (2008), p. 286.

  85. 85.

    Case C-209/03, Bidar (ECJ 15 March 2005).

  86. 86.

    Case 39/86, Lair (ECJ 21 June 1988) and Case 197/86, Brown (ECJ 21 June 1988).

  87. 87.

    Case C-209/03, Bidar (ECJ 15 March 2005) para 42.

  88. 88.

    Case C-209/03, Bidar (ECJ 15 March 2005) para 57.

  89. 89.

    Case C-209/03, Bidar (ECJ 15 March 2005) para 61.

  90. 90.

    On this issue, see Hilpold (2016b) as well as Hilpold (2015) and Guild (2014).

  91. 91.

    Case C-158/07, Förster (ECJ 18 November 2008).

  92. 92.

    Case C-73/08, Bressol (ECJ 13 April 2010).

  93. 93.

    Case C-147/03, Commission v Austria (ECJ 7 July 2005). See on this case Hilpold (2005).

  94. 94.

    Case C-73/08, Bressol (ECJ 13 April 2010) para 62.

  95. 95.

    Case C-73/08, Bressol (ECJ 13 April 2010) para 66.

  96. 96.

    Case C-73/08, Bressol (ECJ 13 April 2010) para 71.

  97. 97.

    Case C-73/08, Bressol (ECJ 13 April 2010) para 73.

  98. 98.

    Case C-192/05, Tas-Hagen (ECJ 26 October 2006).

  99. 99.

    Case C-406/04, Gérald De Cuyper (ECJ 18 July 2006).

  100. 100.

    Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano (ECJ 8 March 2011) para 42.

  101. 101.

    See Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Article 20 AEUV para 52.

  102. 102.

    Case C-434/09, McCarthy (ECJ 5 May 2011).

  103. 103.

    Case C-256/11, Murat Dereci (ECJ 15 November 2011).

  104. 104.

    As it has been said, the question whether EU citizenship rules applied or a purely internal situation was given seems “to hinge on a relatively slight factual distinction: namely the perceived difference in the degree of dependence and vulnerability of the EU-citizen family member”. See Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 833.

  105. 105.

    See Morviducci (2012).

  106. 106.

    Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 42–43.

  107. 107.

    See Minderhoud (2014), p. 223.

  108. 108.

    Case C-333/13, Elisabeta Dano und Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (ECJ 11 November 2014).

  109. 109.

    Case C-140/12, Brey (ECJ 19 September 2013).

  110. 110.

    Case C-140/12, Brey (ECJ 19 September 2013) para 64.

  111. 111.

    See Hailbronner (2014), p. 875.

  112. 112.

    Case C-67/14, Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and other (ECJ 15 September 2015).

  113. 113.

    See Iliopoulou-Penot (2016), p. 1016.

  114. 114.

    Iliopoulou-Penot (2016), p. 1022. See para 60: “Directive 2004/38, establishing a gradual system as regards the retention of the status of ‘worker’ which seeks to safeguard the right of residence and access to social assistance, itself takes into consideration various factors characterising the individual situation of each applicant for social assistance and, in particular, the duration of the exercise of any economic activity.”

  115. 115.

    Case C-299/14, Garcia Nieto and others (ECJ 25 February 2016).

  116. 116.

    See Iliopoulou-Penot (2016), p. 1024.

  117. 117.

    See Olsen (2014).

References

  • Craig, P., & de Búrca, G. (2003). EU law, text, cases, and materials. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & de Búrca, G. (2011). EU law, text, cases, and materials. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Oliveira, J. (1995). Union citizenship: Pie in the sky? In A. Rosas & E. Antola (Eds.), A Citizen’s Europe (pp. 82–84). Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. (1994). The main reforms. In A. Duff, J. Pinder, & R. Pryce (Eds.), Maastricht and beyond. Building the European Union (pp. 19–35). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling, U. (1992). Die Stellung des Bürgers in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung, 33, 241–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, P. (1997). Die Unionsbürgerschaft: ein neues Konzept im Völker- und Europarecht. In Festschrift für Günther Winkler (pp. 237–269). Vienna, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich, T. (2015). Unionsbürgerschaft, politische Rechte. In R. Schulze, S. Kadelbach, & M. Zuleeg (Eds.), Europarecht (pp. 374–418). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, R., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (Eds.). (2012). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Commentary. loose-leaf. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E. (2014). Does European Citizenship blur the borders of solidarity? In E. Guild, C. Gortázar Rotaeche, & D. Kostakopoulou (Eds.), The reconceptualization of European Union Citizenship (pp. 189–208). Leiden: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner, K. (2004). Die Unionsbürgerschaft und das Ende rationale Jurisprudenz durch den EuGH? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 31, 2185–2189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner, K. (2014). EU-Freizügigkeit für nicht erwerbstätige Unionsbürger? JuristenZeitung, 18, 869–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (1995). Bildung in Europa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2005). Hochschulzugang und Unionsbürgerschaft. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 16(21), 647–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2008). Unionsbürgerschaft und Bildungsrechte oder: Der EuGH als “Künstler”. In G. Roth & P. Hilpold (Eds.), Der EuGH und die Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten – Eine kritische Analyse richterlicher Rechtsschöpfung auf ausgewählten Rechtsgebieten (pp. 11–53). Vienna/Bern/Stuttgart: Linde/Stämpfli/Boorberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2011). Unionsbürgerschaft und Hochschulbildung in der EU – Perspektiven einer dynamischen Beziehung. In: K. Odendahl (Ed.), Europäische (Bildungs-)Union? (pp. 147–182). Berlin: BWV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2014a). Die verkaufte Unionsbürgerschaft. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 15, 1071–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2014b). Nichtdiskriminierung und Unionsbürgerschaft. In M. Niedobitek (Ed.), Europarecht – Politiken der Union (pp. 1–96). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2015). Understanding solidarity within EU law: An analysis of the ‘Islands of Solidarity’ with particular regard to Monetary Union. Yearbook of European Law, 34, 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2016a). Die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft im Völkerrecht. Europa Ethnica, 73(1/2), 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2016b). Solidarität im EU-Recht: “Die Inseln der Solidarität” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Flüchtlingsproblematik und der Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion. Europarecht, 51(4), 373–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iliopoulou-Penot, A. (2016). Deconstructing the former edifice of Union citizenship. The Alimanovic judgment. Common Market Law Review, 53(4), 1007–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isensee, J. (1996). Europäische Union – Mitgliedstaaten. Im Spannungsfeld von Integration und nationaler Selbstbehauptung, Effizienz und Idee. Konferenz der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz (Ed.), Europa – Idee, Geschichte, Realität (pp. 71–106). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach, S. (2014). Unionsbürgerrechte. In D. Ehlers (Ed.), Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten (pp. 797–838). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2013). The essence of EU citizenship emerging from the last ten years of academic debate: Beyond the Cherry Blossoms and the moon? Int Comp Law J, 62(1), 97–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostakopoulou, Th. (2008). The future of governance of citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotalakidis, N. (2000). Von der nationalen Staatsangehörigkeit zur Unionsbürgerschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, H., & Stöger, K. (Eds.). (2010). Kommentar zu EUV und AEUV. loose-leaf. Vienna: Manz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minderhoud, P. (2014). Directive 2004/38 and access to social assistance benefits. In E. Guild, C. Gortázar Rotaeche, & D. Kostakopoulou (Eds.), The reconceptualization of European Union citizenship (pp. 209–225). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morviducci, C. (2012). Un nuovo diritto di soggiorno per il Cittadino europeo. In M. C. Baruffi & I. Quadranti (Eds.), Libera circolazione e diritti dei cittadini europei (pp. 1–30). Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nic Shuibhne, N. (2015). Limits rising, duties ascending: The changing legal shape of Union citizenship. Common Market Law Review, 52, 889–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, S. (1999). European communities and EEA, putting flesh on the bones of European Union Citizenship. European Law Review, 24, 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, E. D. H. (2014). European citizenship: toward renationalization or cosmopolitan Europe? In E. Guild, C. Gortázar Rotaeche, & D. Kostakopoulou (Eds.), The reconceptualization of European Union citizenship (pp. 343–360). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein, M., Nowak, C., & Häde, U. (Eds.). (2017). Frankfurter Kommentar zu EUV, GRC und AEUV. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabenschlag, D. (2009). Leitbild Unionsbürgerschaft. Die Auslegung der Unionsbürgerschaft durch den EuGH im Spiegel umstrittener Konzeptionen eines europäischen Bürgerrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N. (2001). Union citizenship – metaphor or source of rights? European Law Journal, 7, 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sander, F. (2005). Die Union als Türöffner zu mitgliedstaatlichen Sozialversicherungssystemen? Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 120, 1014–1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2012). EU-Kommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, S. (Ed.). (2012). EUV/AEUV. Commentary. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tizzano, A. (Ed.). (2014). Trattati dell’Unione Europea. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (2000). Case to C-85/96 María Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, Judgment of 12 May 1998, Full court. [1998] ECR I-2691. Common Market Law Review, 37, 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tryfonidou, A. (2016). The impact of Union citizenship on the EU’s market freedoms. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • von der Groeben, H., Schwarze, J., & Hatje, A. (Eds.). (2015). Europäisches Unionsrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. (1996). The selling of Europe. Jean Monnet Working Paper, 3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Law and Comparative Public Law, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Peter Hilpold

Authors
  1. Peter Hilpold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Hilpold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Università degli Studi di Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

List of Cases

List of Cases

  • ECJ 21.06.1988, 39/86, Sylvie Lair v Universität Hannover, ECLI EU:C:1988:322 [cit. in para 51]

  • ECJ 21.06.1988, 197/86, Steven Malcolm Brown v The Secretary of State for Scotland, ECLI EU:C:1988:323 [cit. in para 51]

  • ECJ 07.07.1992, C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, ECLI EU:C:1992:295 [cit. in para 27]

  • ECJ 30.03.1993, C-168/91, Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig, ECLI EU:C:1993:115 [cit. in para 40]

  • ECJ 14.11.1995, C-214/94, Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI EU:C:1996:174 [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 29.02.1996, C-193/94, Criminal proceedings against Sofia Skanavi and Konstantin Chryssanthakopoulos, ECLI EU:C:1996:70 [cit. in para 42]

  • ECJ 09.06.1997, Joined Cases C-64/97 and C-65/97, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, ECLI EU:C:1997:285 [cit. in para 41]

  • ECJ 17.05.1998, C-85/96, Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI EU:C:1998:217 [cit. in para 44, 61]

  • ECJ 24.11.1998, C-274/96, Bickel and Franz, ECLI EU:C:1998:563 [cit. in para 43]

  • ECJ 20.09.2001, C-184/99, Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, ECLI EU:C:2001:458 [cit. in para 14]

  • ECJ 17.09.2002, C-413/99, Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECLI EU:C:2002:493 [cit. in para 49, 51]

  • ECJ 02.10.2003, C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State, ECLI EU:C:2003:539 [cit. in para 41]

  • ECJ 23.03.2004, C-138/02, Case Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, ECLI EU:C:1993:847[cit. in para 47]

  • ECJ 07.09.2004, C-456/02, Michel Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles, ECLI EU:C:2004:488 [cit. in para 48]

  • ECJ 19.10.2004, C-200/02, Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECLI EU:C:2004:639 [cit. in para 29]

  • ECJ 15.03.2005, C-209/03, Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills, ECLI EU:C:2005:169 [cit. in para 51]

  • ECJ 07.06.2005, C-147/03, Commission v Austria, ECLI EU:C:2005:427 [cit. in para 55]

  • ECJ 18.06.2006, C-406/04, Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi, ECLI EU:C:2006:491 [cit. in para 57]

  • ECJ 26.10.2006, C-192/05, K. Tas-Hagen and R. A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad, ECLI EU:C:2006:676 [cit. in para 57]

  • ECJ 22.05.2008, C-499/06, Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie, ECLI EU:C:2008:300 [cit. in para 37]

  • ECJ 18.11.2008, C-158/07, Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep, ECLI EU:C:2008:630 [cit. in para 53]

  • ECJ 02.03.2010, C-135/08 Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI EU:C:2009:588 [cit. in para 31]

  • ECJ 02.03.2010, C-135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI EU:C:2010:104 [cit. in para 31]

  • ECJ 13.04.2010, C-73/08, Nicolas Bressol and Others and Céline Chaverot and Others v Gouvernement de la Communauté française, ECLI EU:C:2010:181 [cit. in para 55, 56]

  • ECJ 8.03.2011, C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi, ECLI EU:C:2011:124 [cit. in para 58]

  • ECJ 05.05.2011, C-434/09, Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECLI EU:C:2011:277 [cit. in para 59]

  • ECJ 15.11.2011, C-256/11, Murat Dereci and others v Bundesministerium für Inneres, ECLI EU:C:2011:734 [cit. in para 59]

  • ECJ 19.09.2013, C-140/12, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey, ECLI EU:C:2013:565 [cit. in para 62]

  • ECJ 11.11.2014, C-333/13, Elisabeta Dano und Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, ECLI EU:C:2014:2358 [cit. in para 62]

  • ECJ 27.3.2014, C-322/13, Grauel Rüffer/Katerina Pkorná, ECLI EU:C:2014:189 [cit. in para 43]

  • ECJ 15.09.2015, C-67/14, Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others, ECLI EU:C:2015:597 [cit. in para 65]

  • ECJ 25.02.2016, C-299/14, Garcia Nieto and Others v Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen, ECLI EU:C:2016:114 [cit. in para 65]

  • ECJ 12.03.2019, C-221/17 Tjebbes and Others v. Minister van Buitenlands Zaken, ECLI:EU:C:2019:189 [in para 32 and 34]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hilpold, P. (2021). Article 20 [Union Citizenship]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary. Springer Commentaries on International and European Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43509-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43511-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation