Double Nationality in the EU: An Argument for Tolerance (2025)

A Glance at State Nationality/EU Citizenship Interaction(Using the Requirement to Renounce Community Nationality upon Naturalizing in the Member State of Residence as a Pretext)

2009

The legal analysis of the requirement to renounce one’s previous Community nationality upon naturalizing in the Member State of residence provides an excellent pretext to speak about the changing balance between the nationalities of the Member States and the citizenship of the European Union. Amplifying global trends resulting in the fading in importance of state nationalities, the European integration project shaped a legal reality where the importance of particular Member States’ nationalities is dwarfed compared with that of EU citizenship. Currently the Member States’ nationalities, short of being abolished in the legal sense, mostly serve as access points to the status of EU citizenship. Besides, they provide their owners with a limited number of specific rights in deviation from the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality and – what is probably more important for the majority of their owners – trigger legalized discrimination in the wholly internal ...

Acquisition and Loss of Nationality Policies and Trends in 15 European States

2006

recognition, the common good and the consciousness of community (Liebich 1995: 27). Formally, nationality is defined as the legal bond between a person and a state. It is a guiding principle of international law that it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals. However, with the development of human rights since the Second World War, the trend has been towards recognition of the right to a nationality as a human right and it has been accepted that, in matters of nationality, states shall also take individual interests into account. Nationality not only links an individual to a state, it also links individuals to international law; in the EU it also provides individuals with a specific set of rights within this supranational Union. All fifteen EU Member States compared in this volume have experienced immigration as well as emigration and they face the same legitimate expectations from both immigrants and emigrants. However, their responses have been quite different. Some states have reacted to problems with immigrant integration by promoting naturalisation and by granting second and third generations of immigrant descent a right to their nationality, while others have made access to nationality more difficult for immigrants and their descendants. Some states have seen an interest in maintaining ties with their emigrants by allowing them to naturalise abroad without losing their nationality of origin, while others have refused to do so. The nationality policy of each individual state determines who becomes a Union citizen with corresponding rights in all Member States. This might call for common European standards with regard to nationality. Internationally, the possibilities for adopting more uniform nationality rules have been discussed before (Rosenne 1972: 48). Thus, in 1924 the International Law Association prepared a draft regarding the uniform regulation of questions of nationality. One suggestion was to embody the relevant clauses in national legislation via a 'model statute', but the proposal was turned down by the experts preparing The Hague Codification Conference in 1930. The quest for uniformity was considered problematic in the absence of universal jurisdiction and common jurisprudence, so that the different countries' practical application and interpretation of the law could not be expected to be identical. According to the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union and, as such, has the right to move and reside freely within the Member States.

Fighting Statelessness and Discriminatory Nationality Laws in Europe

European Journal of Migration and Law, 2012

The European Convention on Nationality opens with an articulation of the general principles upon which the instrument rests. These can be summarised as follows: (i) states are free to determine who are their nationals, within the limits set by international law; (ii) statelessness shall be avoided; and (iii) rules relating to nationality may not be discriminatory. Here, the second and third statements give content to the first. Thus, the most significant limits imposed by international law with regard to the regulation of nationality are standards relating to the avoidance of statelessness and to the principle of non-discrimination. This article explores the development of these two sets of standards in the European context through an analysis of the further provisions of the European Convention on Nationality as well as an investigation of emerging regional jurisprudence. In particular, the article considers the significance of the recent Rottmann (ECJ 2010) and Genovese (ECtHR 201...

Rounding Up the Circle: The Mutation of Member States' Nationalities Under Pressure from EU Citizenship

2010

The European integration project has shaped a legal reality where the importance of particular Member State nationalities is dwarfed in relation to that of EU citizenship. Currently the Member States’ nationalities, short of being abolished in the legal sense, mostly serve as access points to the status of EU citizenship, which has also come to influence the rules for the acquisition of the Member States' nationalities. Six Member States already provide for different naturalization procedures for the acquisition of nationality for those already in possession of the EU citizenship status. The majority of the assumptions regarding Member State nationalities stand to be profoundly questioned today. EU citizenship is no longer a merely derivative status, leading to the need for re-conceptualization of its relationship with the nationalities of the Member States, if not opening a new chapter in the process of European integration.

Acquisition and Loss of Nationality. Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries. Volume 1: Comparative Analyses

2006

recognition, the common good and the consciousness of community (Liebich 1995: 27). Formally, nationality is defined as the legal bond between a person and a state. It is a guiding principle of international law that it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals. However, with the development of human rights since the Second World War, the trend has been towards recognition of the right to a nationality as a human right and it has been accepted that, in matters of nationality, states shall also take individual interests into account. Nationality not only links an individual to a state, it also links individuals to international law; in the EU it also provides individuals with a specific set of rights within this supranational Union. All fifteen EU Member States compared in this volume have experienced immigration as well as emigration and they face the same legitimate expectations from both immigrants and emigrants. However, their responses have been quite different. Some states have reacted to problems with immigrant integration by promoting naturalisation and by granting second and third generations of immigrant descent a right to their nationality, while others have made access to nationality more difficult for immigrants and their descendants. Some states have seen an interest in maintaining ties with their emigrants by allowing them to naturalise abroad without losing their nationality of origin, while others have refused to do so. The nationality policy of each individual state determines who becomes a Union citizen with corresponding rights in all Member States. This might call for common European standards with regard to nationality. Internationally, the possibilities for adopting more uniform nationality rules have been discussed before (Rosenne 1972: 48). Thus, in 1924 the International Law Association prepared a draft regarding the uniform regulation of questions of nationality. One suggestion was to embody the relevant clauses in national legislation via a 'model statute', but the proposal was turned down by the experts preparing The Hague Codification Conference in 1930. The quest for uniformity was considered problematic in the absence of universal jurisdiction and common jurisprudence, so that the different countries' practical application and interpretation of the law could not be expected to be identical. According to the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union and, as such, has the right to move and reside freely within the Member States.

The EU Citizenship in Purely Internal Situations and Reverse Discrimination

The EU citizenship is unique animal parasitizing on the national citizenship. Yet it has nearly gained self-standing status through the jurisprudence of the CJEU. However, the fact that the EU citizenship has been incrementally carved out on the case-by-case basis is responsible for its patchwork character which causes serious problems. Firstly, Member States have little understanding for the concept of the EU citizenship extended by the judge-made law since it has compromised their sovereignty in such areas as social and immigration policy. Secondly, reverse discrimination, pervading malaise of the EU citizenship, presents a situation where the static EU citizens are discriminated against dynamic one´s and even against Third Country Nationals. Hence the EU citizenship is perceived as a concept benefitting only small minority to the detriment of majority which is the reason why the EU citizenship failed to attain broad allegiance. Unpopular among Member States, lacking the support of ordinary citizens, the EU citizenship needs impetus in order to imbue the EU integration with legitimacy, instead of becoming reason of its erosion.

The Triangular Relationship Between Nationality, EU Citizenship and Migration in EU Law: A Tale of Competing Competences

Netherlands International Law Review

Within the legal framework of the EU, the Member States have remained competent to regulate who qualifies as a national. As nationals of a Member State are simultaneously EU citizens and enjoy the right to intra-EU mobility, it is the Member States who, through their Nationality Laws, determine who is to be classed as an EU citizen and who enjoys the right to intra-EU mobility. This article explores whether Member State competence to regulate nationality matters has been affected by the introduction of EU citizenship and/or developments in intra-EU mobility rights, the contents of which are determined primarily by the EU.

European Union Citizenship and the Unlawful Denial of Member State Nationality

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019

Nationality Law and European Citizenship: The Role of Dual Nationality,

Nationality Law and European Citizenship: The Role of Dual Nationality, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2010/66, Robert Schuman Centre For Advanced Studies Eudo Citizenship Observatory, 2010

Nationality Law and European Citizenship: The Role of Dual Nationality,

A Real European Citizenship; a New Jurisdiction Test; a Novel Chapter in the Development of the Union in Europe

18(1) Columbia Journal of European Law, 2011, pp. 55–109

The reach of the law of the European Union (EU) is strictly limited. It only applies to the situations falling within its scope. Until very recently, in the case of EU citizens, in order to fall within this scope, a so-called “cross-border situation” was required – a demonstration that their situation had a Union dimension and was not confined to one of the Member States. This is no longer always the case. Under the new approach, it is the intensity of the Member States’ interference with the rights of EU citizens, and not the borders, which trigger the application of EU law. The consequences of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, including the Rottmann, Ruiz Zambrano, and McCarthy cases, which brought about this change, are truly groundbreaking. The new legal paradigm amounts to a tectonic shift in the border dividing the material scopes of the EU and the Member States’ legal orders, with clear implications for the status of EU citizenship and the sovereignty of the Member States. This article provides a first analysis of this fundamental development, discussing the reasons for, and the limits of the new approach as well as anticipating its consequences for a number of key elements of EU law, including citizenship, territory and the principle of equality. We are witnessing the creation of a real European citizenship by the Court.