EU Law: Cases for EU Citizenship

Citizenship was first introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (TEU) and demonstrated a shift from a purely economical community to a political union. Article 20 TFEU sets out the main elements of EU citizenship. Including the fact that EU citizenship is an addition to national citizenship, rather than a replacement. Article 21 TFEU states that citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states.

FAMILY LIFE

Baumbast concerned a German national who had lived and worked in the UK for 3 years with his Columbian wife and two children. When he left to work in Asia and Africa, the UK refused to renew his family’s residency permits. Requested a preliminary ruling as to whether there was a right of residence. Held that there was because Baumbast could rely on Article 21; he’d lawfully worked in the host member state for several years and his family had resided with him. Furthermore, neither he nor his family were a burden on the finances of the host member state. Baumbast established that there is a general right of residence under Article 21 but member states have the right to limit it. It also established that children who have begun their education in a host member state are entitled to stay and finish their education, and that the carer of that child is also allowed to reside.

Zambrano concerned a Columbian couple who were seeking asylum in the UK but were denied residence. They later had two children whilst in the UK and the question was whether they were entitled to stay, given that their children now had British nationality, despite the fact that neither parent was in employment. The court held that in order to protect the rights of the children who had become EU citizens, the parents must be entitled to work and reside.

McCarthy concerned a British-Irish lady, living in the UK unemployed but claiming state benefits. She wanted to exercise her right to move and reside with a dependent by allowing her Jamaican husband to live with her in the UK. The court ruled that her circumstances were ‘wholly internal’ as she had never before wanted to exercise her rights under EU law. She was not a worker and was already a burden on the host member state, therefore her husband was not granted residency.

McCarthy might be seen as similar to Zambrano, given that the parents in Z and the women in M were not working, and that denying residency in both instances must disrupt the right to family life. However the facts can be distinguished on the basis that children are hugely dependent on their parents and would theoretically have to move to follow their parents where’s McCarthy’s husband is not bound to follow her although it might be preferable in a marriage; also note that the children in Z had become UK nationals and thus to deny their parents the right to reside would mean the children’s citizenship rights under Article 21 would be breached.

Chen concerned a Chinese lady who opted to move to Ireland for the sole purpose of giving birth to her daughter Catherine, with a view to her daughter gaining EU citizenship. The UK rejected her residency permit but the CJEU said that they were bound to grant residency where the child was an EU national. The mother was not capable of being a dependent of her child but was definitely a carer, which without residency, that child would be deprived of.

Casa-Grande said that non-national children are entitled to educational grants the same as nationals of that member state. There can be no discrimination.

STUDENTS AND STUDYING

Grzelczyk concerned a French student studying in his 4^th year in Belgium. He applied for a minimum subsistence allowance (minimex) which he was initially granted but later denied on grounds that he was not a Belgian national. The courts said that if Grzelczyk had been a Belgian national under exactly the same conditions, the allowance would have been granted, therefore it was very obvious that the rejection was based on discrimination on grounds of nationality. The court noted that previously in Brown they had ruled that maintenance assistance for students fell outside of the scope of the Treaties; however developments in the law, particularly the introduction of Directive 2004/38 have given students additional rights. Grzelczyk was entitled to equal treatment under Article 18 TFEU. Legal principle: EU nationals pursuing study in another Member State are entitled to access to social security. Did not deal with maintenance loans.

Bidar concerned a French national who had resided and completed his secondary education in the UK before accepting a place at a London University. His application for maintenance grant was rejected on the basis that he had not completed the requisite 4 years residence, outside of education, in the UK. The court, although stating that it’s reasonable for member states to require a certain level of integration into society before providing any grants, and also that Article 24 of the Directive provides no obligation on member states to provide social assistance, accepted Bidar’s application. The general requirement was for the 4 years residence to be outside of education, however Bidar had still demonstrated a sufficiently long residence period in the UK and was not a burden on the finances of the host MS.

Forster confirmed Bidar and said that 5 years prior residency was proportionate and legitimate. In the case, a German woman went to reside and study in the Netherlands. She got herself a job whilst studying and because the Netherlands constituted her to be a ‘worker’, they ruled that she should be treated the same way as nationals with regards to the maintenance grant. She was awarded the grant but the authorities later discovered that Forster had not been employed for 5 months, losing her rights as a worker and therefore losing her right to the grant. They demanded that she pay back the money for the months she had not been employed. Forster claimed that she was integrated into society, relying on Bidar, but the Dutch national authorities said she must have resided for a minimum of 5 years. The CJEU held that 5 years was an acceptable time period.

Collins concerned an Irish-American citizen who moved to the UK in search of work as a social worker. He applied for the job seekers allowance but was refused on the basis that he was not a habitual resident of the UK. The CJEU held that it was unlawful to discriminate on grounds of nationality as all EU citizens are entitled to equal treatment when seeking work. Furthermore, the case established that it’s unlawful to deny a benefit that will facilitate access to the employment market.

D’Hoop concerned a Belgian national who completed her secondary education in France before attending a Belgian university. After her degree she applied for the ‘tide over allowance’ which is given to new graduates looking for their first employment, but was rejected on the grounds that she’d completed her secondary education in a different member state. On a preliminary reference, the court held that it was discriminatory to deny the allowance, based on Articles 12 and 18 of the EC Treaty.

Gravier said that vocational training (as mentioned in Art 7 Directive) means university.