Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 9 [The Principle of Equality and Citizenship of the Union]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Treaty on European Union (TEU)

  • 2793 Accesses

Abstract

In all its activities, 4 the Union shall observe the principle of the equality 7–16 of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention 5,6 from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. 4 Every national of a Member State 29–37 shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship 17–25 of the Union shall be additional 38–42 to and not replace national citizenship.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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 Dougan (2008) and Reh (2009).

  2. 2.

    Schönberger in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 3.

  3. 3.

    Art. 119 EEC, then 141 EC, now Art. 157 TFEU.

  4. 4.

    European Parliament, Report on the Lisbon Treaty, A6-0013/2008, p. 22.

  5. 5.

    European Parliament, Report on the Lisbon Treaty, A6-0013/2008, p. 22–23.

  6. 6.

    COM(2007) 412, p. 7.

  7. 7.

    Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 16.

  8. 8.

    Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.

  9. 9.

    Kadelbach (2009) para 9.

  10. 10.

    Dworkin (1977).

  11. 11.

    Rawls (1973).

  12. 12.

    Dworkin (1977), p. 180.

  13. 13.

    Dworkin (1977), p. 272.

  14. 14.

    Dworkin (1977), p. 273.

  15. 15.

    Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.

  16. 16.

    Kadelbach (2009), para 137.

  17. 17.

    For an early but still valuable review of the scope of application of the pre-Charter EU fundamental rights as fundamental principles see Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig—Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw—Ordnungsamt (Opinion of AG Jacobs of 9 December 1992).

  18. 18.

    Case 5/88 Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (ECJ 13 July 1989).

  19. 19.

    Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others (ERT) (ECJ 18 June 1991), Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag (ECJ 26 June 1997).

  20. 20.

    See Jacobs (2001); Egger (2006); Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons (2010); Jacqué (2002).

  21. 21.

    For example, in Case C-108/10 Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Opinion of AG Bot of 5 April 2011): “In my view, the wording adopted by the authors of the Charter does not mean that they sought to restrict the scope of that Charter in relation to the case-law definition of the scope of the general principles of EU law. That is demonstrated by the explanations relating to Article 51(1) of the Charter, which, in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52 of the Charter, must be taken into account for the purpose of interpreting the Charter”. See also Case C-411/10 N. S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Opinion of AG Trstenjak of 22 September 2011), who similarly relied on the published Explanations relating to the Charter in O.J. C 303/32 (2007), particularly stressing that those Explanations cite the Wachauf and ERT judgments of the Court.

  22. 22.

    Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para72.

  23. 23.

    Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001). However, note the Court’s travails to circumscribe some of the limitations of the Directive and to expand the notion equal treatment rights in cases such as Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (ECJ 15 March 2005) and Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010). For Rottmann → para 33 et seqq. 37, 49.

  24. 24.

    Art. 157.3 TFEU allows for the adoption of legislation by the ordinary legislative procedure.

  25. 25.

    Perhaps the most noteworthy early pieces of legislation in this regard were Directive 76/207, concerning the implementation of equal pay for men and women, O.J. L 39/40 (1976) and Directive 79/7 regarding the implementation of equal treatment of men and women with regard to social security, O.J. L 6/24 (1979).

  26. 26.

    For example the early Case 80/70 Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State (ECJ 25 May 1971) and Case C-177/88 Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus (ECJ 8 November 1990).

  27. 27.

    Bell (2011).

  28. 28.

    See for example the Long-Term Residents Directive 2003/109/EC regulating the status and (equal treatment) rights of third-country nationals, O.J. L 16/44 (2004). This directive does not apply in the UK, Ireland and Denmark.

  29. 29.

    For an analysis of whether and how far the rights of third-country nationals are commensurate with or approximate equal treatment, see Halleskov (2005).

  30. 30.

    Bell (2011), p. 638.

  31. 31.

    Art. 18 TFEU reads: “Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to the special provisions therein, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.” Art. 21.1 EUCFR contains a near verbatim replication (→ para 17 et seqq.).

  32. 32.

    Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 12 May 1998); Dougan (2006); Elsmore and Starup (2007).

  33. 33.

    Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’) (ECJ 20 February 1979).

  34. 34.

    Case C-55/94 Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (ECJ 30 November 1995); for further analysis, see Spaventa (2004) and Snell (2010).

  35. 35.

    Bell (2011).

  36. 36.

    For a sound review from a fundamental rights perspective see Bell (2010). This fundamental rights perspective on equal treatment of third-country nationals tallies with the fundamental principle reading of equality advanced here.

  37. 37.

    Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 30 et seqq.

  38. 38.

    Bell (2011).

  39. 39.

    De Waele (2010).

  40. 40.

    Shaw (2008); also Duff (2005).

  41. 41.

    Commission Report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, On Progress towards effective EU citizenship 2007–2010, COM(2010) 602 para 2.1.

  42. 42.

    Art. 20 (2) TFEU, where the words “inter alia” were added by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  43. 43.

    Horspool (2012), p. 285.

  44. 44.

    Shaw (2008).

  45. 45.

    Horspool (2012), p. 285.

  46. 46.

    Kohler-Koch and Rittberger (2006), p. 16.

  47. 47.

    Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 17 et seq., 23.

  48. 48.

    Schönberger, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 8 et seqq.

  49. 49.

    Cuesta Lopez (2010), p. 125.

  50. 50.

    Cuesta Lopez (2010), p. 131 et seq.

  51. 51.

    Bull EC 12-1974, point 111. For a more detailed historical discussion see O’Keeffe (1994).

  52. 52.

    Bull Supp 1/76.

  53. 53.

    O.J. C 207/14 (1979).

  54. 54.

    COM(88) 371 final.

  55. 55.

    Europe No. 5252, 11 May 1990, p. 3.

  56. 56.

    Towards a European Citizenship, Europe documents, No. 1653, 2 October 1990.

  57. 57.

    Bull Supp 2/91.

  58. 58.

    Bull Supp 2/91.

  59. 59.

    Bindi Report on Union Citizenship, PE Doc. A 3-0139/91, 23 May 1991.

  60. 60.

    International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v Guatamala (‘Nottebohm’) (Judgment of 6 April 1955) ICJ Rep. 4, p. 23. See also Art.1 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws. On the development of ius sanguinis and ius soli principles for determining nationality, see Shaw (2008), p. 659 et seq. Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) establishes that every individual has the right to a nationality, which the state cannot deprive in an arbitrary manner.

  61. 61.

    European Commission, DG Justice, Freedom and Security: Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, 3rd ed., http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_12892_168517401.pdf.

  62. 62.

    4 March 2013.

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., the Declaration on Nationality of a Member State attached to the 1992 TEU. This had asserted that “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” (emphasis added).

  64. 64.

    Cf. International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v Guatamala (‘Nottebohm’) (Judgment of 6 April 1955) ICJ Rep. 4, where a genuine link is required between a person and a state for there to be an “effective” nationality in international law. See further, Ruzié (1993).

  65. 65.

    Case C-369/90 Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria (ECJ 7 July 1992) para 10.

  66. 66.

    Case C-179/98 Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah (ECJ 11 November 1999) para 29.

  67. 67.

    Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001).

  68. 68.

    Case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 19 October 2004) para 37.

  69. 69.

    For example, Case C-274/96 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz (ECJ 24 November 1998) para 17 (national provisions in the sphere of criminal legislation and rules of criminal procedure); Case C-148/02 Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgium (ECJ 2 October 2003) para 25 (national rules governing names); Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München (ECJ 12 July 2005) para 19 (national rules on direct taxation); Case C-145/04 Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ECJ 12 September 2006) para 78 and Case C-300/04 M. G. Eman and O. B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (ECJ 12 September 2006) para 61 (national rules relating to persons entitled to vote and stand in elections to the EP).

  70. 70.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 42 (emphasis added).

  71. 71.

    Cf. Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 11, who had stressed the fact of movement between two MS as the trigger for the relevance of EU law.

  72. 72.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 56.

  73. 73.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 51.

  74. 74.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 56.

  75. 75.

    This itself was hinted at in Rottmann when the Court referred to the relevance of its principles for the Austrian court that might hear any attempt by the applicant to retrieve his Austrian nationality: see Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 63. Such a position would require reconsideration of Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001), which was expressly distinguished by the Grand Chamber in Rottmann (para 49).

  76. 76.

    For example via Association and Cooperation Agreements concluded between the EU and Third Countries. TCNs will also be beneficiaries of other general measures, such as Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, O.J. L 251/12 (2003).

  77. 77.

    Bull-EU, 10-1999.

  78. 78.

    Council Directive 2003/109 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, O.J. L 16/44 (2004).

  79. 79.

    European Commission, DG Justice, Freedom and Security: Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, chapter 5.

  80. 80.

    The concept of “civic citizen” derives from three main constitutive elements: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Immigration, Integration and the Role of Civil Society, SOC/075, CES 365/2002; Commission Communication on a Community immigration policy COM(2000) 757 final para 3.5; Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment, COM(2003) 336. See further, Perchinig (2006).

  81. 81.

    See further De Waele (2010).

  82. 82.

    Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011).

  83. 83.

    For example Case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 19 October 2004). See generally Kochenov (2010a, b).

  84. 84.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 30.

  85. 85.

    See further, Margiotta and Vonk (2010), esp. section 5.

  86. 86.

    See Jessurun d’Oliveira (1994).

  87. 87.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/edinburgh/b3_en.pdf, “Nothing in the [TEU] implies or foresees an undertaking to create a citizenship of the Union in the sense of citizenship of a nation-state…”

  88. 88.

    CONV 369/02, 28 October 2002; see http://european-convention.eu.int/.

  89. 89.

    For example De Waele (2010); Shaw (2011); Schrauwen (2008). However, the Select Committee of the House of Lords responding to the Draft Constitutional Treaty seemed not to notice any difference between complementary and additional; see CONV 598/03.

  90. 90.

    Bellamy (2008).

  91. 91.

    For example Shaw (2008), also Duff (2005) referring to the earlier Edinburgh agreement that insertion of the additionality point was done “cleverly, to mollify conservative eurosceptic opinion”.

  92. 92.

    De Waele (2010).

  93. 93.

    Shaw (2011).

  94. 94.

    Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 479.

  95. 95.

    For example the seminal study by Shaw (2007).

  96. 96.

    Case C-145/04 Spain v United Kingdom (ECJ 12 September 2006).

  97. 97.

    Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 480.

  98. 98.

    Bell (2007), p. 311.

  99. 99.

    Case C-300/04 Eman & Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (ECJ 12 September 2006).

  100. 100.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 178—Lisbon.

  101. 101.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 212—Lisbon.

  102. 102.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 217 and 218—Lisbon. This eternity clause in enshrined in Art. 79.3 of the Basic Law.

  103. 103.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 280—Lisbon.

  104. 104.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 272—Lisbon.

  105. 105.

    For a discussion of audit democracy and alternative models in relation to the Lisbon judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, see Eriksen and Fossum (2011).

  106. 106.

    Eriksen and Fossum (2011), esp. p. 160.

  107. 107.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 252—Lisbon.

  108. 108.

    Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig—Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw—Ordnungsamt (Opinion of AG Jacobs of 9 December 1992) para 46.

  109. 109.

    Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.

  110. 110.

    For example Case C-224/98 Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 28; Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 17 September 2002) para 82; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello (ECJ 2 October 2003) para 22; Case C-224/02 Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 16; Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen (ECJ 19 October 2004) para 25; Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (ECJ 15 March 2005) para 31; Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München (ECJ 12 July 2005) para 15; Case C-524/06 Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ECJ 16 December 2008) para 69.

  111. 111.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (ECJ 2 March 2010) para 43 (emphasis added).

  112. 112.

    Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 41.

  113. 113.

    Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 42.

  114. 114.

    Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 17 September 2002).

  115. 115.

    Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen (ECJ 19 October 2004).

  116. 116.

    Borgmann-Prebil (2008).

  117. 117.

    Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 31.

  118. 118.

    Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (ECJ Grand Chamber 8 March 2011) para 42.

  119. 119.

    Alexy (2000); Borgmann-Prebil (2008).

  120. 120.

    Heilbronner and Thym (2011), p. 1256.

  121. 121.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 1031.

  122. 122.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 1036, “Lebensumfeld” in the German original.

  123. 123.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 1031.

  124. 124.

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

  125. 125.

    Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011).

  126. 126.

    Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 64 et seqq.

  127. 127.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 1033.

  128. 128.

    Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 66.

  129. 129.

    Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres (ECJ Grand Chamber 15 November 2011) para 68.

  130. 130.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 1033.

  131. 131.

    Borgmann-Prebil (2008); Dougan and Spaventa (2005).

  132. 132.

    Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 9 EUV para 5.

  133. 133.

    Shaw (2011).

  134. 134.

    Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 30 September 2009) para 23.

  135. 135.

    Shaw (2011).

Table of Cases

  • ECJ 25.05.1971, 80/70, Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State, ECR 445 [cit. in para 10]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 20.02.1979, 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’), ECR 649 [cit. in para 13]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.07.1989, 5/88, Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, ECR 2609 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 08.11.1990, C-177/88, Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus, ECR I-3941[cit. in para 10]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 18.06.1991, C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others (ERT), ECR I-2925 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 07.07.1992, C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, ECR I-4239 [cit. in para 31]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ, 30.11.1995, C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano ECR I-4165 [cit. in para 13]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 26.06.1997, C-368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag ECR I-3689 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.05.1998, C-85/96, María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern, ECR I-2691 [cit. in para 13]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 24.11.1998, C-274/96, Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz, ECR I-7637 [cit. in para 31]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.11.1999, C-179/98, Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah, ECR I-7955 [cit. in para 31]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 20.02.2001, C-192/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, ECR I-1237 [cit. in para 31]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 20.09.2001, C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, ECR I- 6193 [cit. in para 9; 49; 51]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.07.2002, C-224/98, Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi ECR I-6191 [cit. in para 49]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 17.09.2002, C-413/99, Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECR I-7091 [cit. in para 49; 51]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 02.10.2003, C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State, ECR I-11613 [cit. in para 31; 49]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 29.04.2004, C-224/02, Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö, ECR I-5763 [cit. in para 49]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 19.10.2004, C-200/02, Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ECR I-9925 [cit. in para 31; 37; 49; 51]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.07.2005, C-403/03, Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München, ECR I-6421 [cit. in para 31; 49]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.09.2006, C-145/04, Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [cit. in para 31; 44]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.09.2006, C-300/04, M. G. Eman and O. B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag [cit. in para 31; 44]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 16.12.2008, C-524/06, Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECR I-9705 [cit. in para 49]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 02.03.2010, C-135/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, ECR I-1449 [cit. in para 9; 32–34; 37; 49; 55]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 08.05.2011, C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) [cit. in para 37; 49; 51]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 05.04.2011, C-108/10, Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 05.05.2011, C-434/09, McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [cit. in para 53]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 15.11.2011, C-256/11, Murat Dereci et al. v Bundesministerium für Inneres [cit. in para 7; 54]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Alexy, R. (2000). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (2007). Civic citizenship and migrant integration. Environment People Law, 13(2), 311–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (2010). Irregular migrants: Beyond the limits of solidarity? In M. Ross & Y. Borgmann-Prebil (Eds.), Promoting solidarity in the European Union (pp. 151–165). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (2011). The principle of equal treatment: Widening and deepening. In P. Craig & G. De Búrca (Eds.), The evolution of EU Law (2nd ed., pp. 611–640). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, R. (2008). Evaluating Union citizenship: Belonging, rights and participation within the EU. Citizenship Studies, 12(6), 597–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann-Prebil, Y. (2008). The rule of reason in European citizenship. European Law Journal, 14(3), 328–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuesta Lopez, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty's provisions on democratic principles: A legal framework for participatory democracy. European Public Law, 16(1), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waele, H. (2010). EU citizenship: Revisiting its meaning, place and potential. European Journal of Migration and Law, 12(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2006). The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship. European Law Review, 31(5), 613–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning minds not hearts. Common Market Law Review, 45(3), 617–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M., & Spaventa, E. (2005). Wish you weren’t here! New models of social solidarity in the European Union. In M. Dougan & E. Spaventa (Eds.), Social welfare and EU law (pp. 180–208). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. (2005). The struggle for Europe’s constitution. London: Federal Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger, A. (2006). EU-fundamental rights in the national legal order: The obligations of Member States revisited. Yearbook of European Law, 25(1), 515–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsmore, M., & Starup, P. (2007). Union citizenship – background, jurisprudence, and perspective – the past, present, and future of law and policy. Yearbook of European Law, 26(1), 57–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2011). Bringing European democracy back in – or how to read the German Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Treaty ruling. European Law Journal, 17(2), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, R., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2011). Das Recht der Europäischen Union, loose leaf. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halleskov, L. (2005). The long-term residents directive: A fulfilment of the Tampere objective of near-equality? European Journal of Migration and Law, 7, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, K., & Thym, D. (2011). Case commentary on Ruiz Zembrano. Common Market Law Review, 48(4), 1253–1270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horspool, M. (2012). The concept of citizenship in the European Union. I. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 279–294). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, F. (2001). Human rights in the EU: The role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review, 26(4), 331–341 et seqq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué, J. P. (2002). La Charte des droits fundamentaux de l’Union européenne: aspects juridiques généraux. Revue Européenne de Droit Public, 14(1), 107–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessurun d’Oliveira, H. U. (1994). European citizenship: Its meaning, its potential. In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Europe after Maastricht: An ever closer union? (pp. 126–148). Munich: Law Books in Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach, S. (2009). Citizenship rights in Europe. In D. Ehlers (Ed.), European fundamental rights and freedoms (pp. 541–574). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2010a). The puzzle of citizenship and territory in the EU: On European rights overseas. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 17(3), 230–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2010b). Rounding up the circle: The mutation of Member States’ nationalities under pressure from EU citizenship (EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2010/23).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B., & Ritterberger, B. (2006). The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU studies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(1), 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K., & Gutiérrez-Fons, J. (2010). The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Review, 47(6), 1629–1669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margiotta, C., & Vonk, O. (2010). Nationality law and European citizenship: The role of dual nationality (EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2010/66).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim, M. (2011). Der “Kernbereich” der Unionsbürgerschaft – vom Schutz der Mobilität zur Gewährung eines Lebensumfelds. Juristen Zeitung, 66(21), 1030–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe, D. (1994). Union citizenship. In D. O’Keeffe, & P. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht Treaty (pp. 87–108 et seqq). Chichester: Chancery Law Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perchinig, B. (2006). EU citizenship and the status of Third Country Nationals. In R. Bauböck (Ed.), Migration and citizenship: Legal status, rights and political participation (IMISCOE Reports, (pp. 67–82 et seqq). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1973). A theory of justice. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reh, C. (2009). The Lisbon Treaty: De-constitutionalizing the European Union? Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), 625–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruzié, D. (1993). Nationalité, effectivité et droit communautaire. Revue générale de droit international public, 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrauwen, A. (2008, March). The Future of EU Citizenship: Corrosion of national citizenship?. Conference paper Birmingham. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375413. Accessed 1 Mar 2012.

  • Shaw, J. (2007). The transformation of citizenship in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Accessed 1 March 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. (2008). International law (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. (2011). Citizenship: Contrasting dynamics at the interface of integration and constitutionalism (EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2010/60).

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, J. (2010). The notion of market access: A concept or a slogan? Common Market Law Review, 47(2), 437–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa, E. (2004). From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (non-)economic European constitution. Common Market Law Review, 41(3), 743–773 et seqq.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Authors
  1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelio Mangiameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council - Institute fo Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 9 [The Principle of Equality and Citizenship of the Union]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation