Importance of the EU Citizenship Law - Research Paper Example

European Union Law Importance of EU Citizenship Law Introduction Citizenship is an important factor that affects socio-economic and political developments in the world. In the European Union, citizenship came into force following the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 (Baliga, 1994). The Treaty was signed in 1992. European citizenship is a policy providing for citizenship outside national jurisdictions and aims to guarantee eligible persons more freedom to operate outside their countries of origin. The citizens’ freedoms include; taking part in European polls; movement across the member states, and residency programs; employment within the larger international community; and consular protection. Legal background of the EU Law The idea of European Union citizenship was brought into force for the first time by the Maastricht Treaty, with the subsequent Treaty of Amsterdam extended the implementation of its provisions (Baliga, 1994). Before EU member countries had reached a consensus on the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, various treaties of the European Communities supported the free citizenship and residency for only the economically viable individuals. The Treaty of Paris, established in 1951 brought into force the European Coal and Steel Community. The resulting situation provided room for free movement for employees in these sectors across the EU countries. The Treaty of Rome (1957) guaranteed workers across EU countries, free movement for purposes of service delivery (Marian, 2012). The European Court of Justice has, of late, construed the provisions of the Treaty European Court of Justice as having broader social and economic implications in the international forum as opposed to the perceived narrow impact (Baliga, 1994). The Court has established that the liberty to fill employment positions was imperative, not just as a way to create a common market for the advantage of the economic growth of the member states, but as an avenue for raising the economic wellbeing of the workers, hence the quasi-economic policy (Marian, 2012). Shuibhne (2010) noted that the ECJ’s verdicts have been leaning toward advancing economic issues as opposed to free citizenship. For example, the Court says workers’ rights to free movement within EU apply irrespective of their role in filling employment positions in foreign countries. Moreover, both temporary and permanent workers are cushioned from expulsion, whether or not the affected party needed extra financial help from the host country (Baliga, 1994). In Martinez Sala case, the ECJ held that the provisions spelling out the citizenship rights translate into essential free movement rights and work as adjunct measures to the provisions of the Union law. The pegging of the movement rights on economic productivity, however lends credence to an argument that the EU citizenship advances quasi-economic agendas (de Waele, 2010). Elsuwege and Kochenov (2011) suggested that the freedom of movement and settle within the EU 27 is provided for under Article 18 of the EC. The Article undeniably advances one of the two facets of the Union’s citizenship (Likic-Brboric, 2011). This right embodies the pre-condition for enjoying the most important freedoms and vital citizen rights. This is because the supranational element is paramount in the invocation of the EU law. Carrera and Wiesbrock (2010) argued that it obviously attempts to establish a general liberty as far as movement of EU citizens is concerned, without any regard for economic freedoms. As a result of the recent outcomes of the ECJ case laws, it is arguable that the economic objective is being advanced if not realized. In contrast, Baumbast and R. [2002] case contradicted the entirely economic policy of citizenship. The Court provided direction by upholding the direct impact of Article 18 on the freedom of movement by citizens, by tacitly raising the positive implications of an entirely citizenship-based migration policy. In light of this, Wiesbrock (2012) argued that the Baumbast verdict deflated the need for engagement in economic forums in order to enhance the right to relocate and settle in the country of choice within the EU umbrella. It is notable that the ruling has subordinated economic activity to a universal right to relocate and settle without being pressured to adhere to immigration policies which arises from the position of European Union citizenship. Nonetheless, the Court’s verdicts and Article 18 EC have invoked limitations and provisions placed on the freedom of movement and residence in the country of choice under EU. A quasi-economic policy By contrast, the freedom of movement and settlement for eligible persons is subject to a number of restrictions (Shuibhne, 2010). Citizens who are protected by the law must either prove their economic productivity, or be able to economically sustain their stay in their host country. Moreover, individuals who cannot prove their economic viability must have insurance cover for their health care costs in the foreign country, which most people lack (Hansen, & Hager, 2012; Maas, 2007). In light of these restrictions, it is arguable that the denial of vulnerable groups, the rights to live freely within EU is tantamount to EU citizenship being a quasi-economic policy. Notably, the restrictions are fundamentally different from a suitable constitutional citizenship supporting unity, and equality across the member states. The restrictions on the eligibility and freedom to relocate and settle freely in the preferred EU member country, which are founded upon issues related to public security, government policy and health care, are not impacted on by the universality of these obligations as established under Article 18(1) (Baskaran, 2010). This implies that a member state reserves the right to decline an entry request, or deport a citizen of another member state where there is adequate grounds for such actions. Nonetheless, such exclusion or deportation of persons is not, under international law, allowed for original state where an individual enjoys citizenship (Likic-Brboric, 2011). This is one of areas where national citizenship departs from the Union citizenship. By contrast, Wiesbrock (2012) suggested that the employment of the restrictions is not just an issue of authority of the new country of choice, the limitations are narrowly understood. The reasons have been defined clearer over time, however. For instance, the issue of fair application of law is imperative to the determination of whether it is proper to debar or expel an individual. Marian (2012) argued that to subscribe to this school of thought, the new Citizenship Directive, which wholly came into force in 2006, should be invoked, since the directive guides the treatment of people in foreign countries based on a quasi-economic policy. Article 28 of the Citizenship Directive places the burden of setting up of benchmarks upon the member states, which should, as a matter of public policy or security, deport a citizen with legal residence of the supranational body (Guild, 2004). For instance, if an individual with the Union’s citizenship has legitimately lived in a foreign country for a decade, his or her expulsion should be based on cogent economic grounds. Elsuwege and Kochenov (2011) noted that despite the ‘innocence’ of the law, any member state can create a quasi-economic policy by practically locking out unproductive foreigners from its jurisdiction. Residence Directives Apart from these restrictions there are circumstances embodied in the settlement of by individuals enjoying individual membership of the EU under the Residence Directives (Larkins, 2011). This is especially true if a citizen of the supranational body does not take part in economic activities. These conditions encompass the requirements of adequate economic wherewithal and comprehensive health care cover. These regulations of Residence Directives targeted at the economically unproductive Union citizens to obtain a right to residence have triggered thoughts that the eligibility to settle in another country is rendered useless when a Union citizen does not conform to these requirements. By contrast, according to the latest verdicts of the ECJ on this matter it can be pointed out that these limitations should be implemented by EU member states in conformity to the universal values of proportionality and Community law, which is not always the case (de Waele, 2010). In light of this, Larkins (2011) argued that that the ECJ has weakened the impact of these legal limitations in interpreting the eligibility of residence by EU citizens. In the Grzelczyk case, for instance, the Court’s decision tied the hands of various state agents in the EU membership states to annul the citizens’ right to residence within their jurisdictions, on the basis that in the final year of his education, the French national, Grzelczyk found himself unable to settle his bills and applied for government funding in order to finish his education. The grant was available to Belgian students. In order to rescue the student, the ECJ had to construe the Directives together with Article12 and 18 EC, to inform its argument that economic productivity does not apply in student’s cases. Moreover, in the Baumbast case, the ECJ interpreted the law in a similar direction. With respect to Rudy Grzelczyk [2001], the Court argued that Mr. Baumbast, a German citizen who had comprehensive health care insurance cover in his native country and never depended on the government for financial support in the United Kingdom during his stay, was eligible to residence rights and that the mere fact that he did not have an emergency health care insurance in the foreign country had no basis under the law. From the outcomes of these cases, it can be argued that the Court lowered the bar enshrined under the Residency Directives (Arcarazo, 2011; Vatandaşliğin et al, 2010). The verdicts were basically premised upon the fact that the outcomes of the two cases could not translate into an unreasonable encumbrance upon the new home countries of the claimants (Baun, 1995). Legal Precedent The outcomes of Michel Trojani [2004] and Dany Bidar [2005] cases have clearly respected the legal precedents set out in the earlier Baumbast and Grzelczyk cases. In Trojani case, the Court decided that he had no eligibility of residence since he lacked the financial capacity to rein in his bills on his own, regardless of his legal citizenship of Belgium. The Court reasoned that the litigant’s right stemmed from Article 18 and the invocation of the proportionality clauses of the Treaty failed to suffice (Baskaran, 2010). On the contrary, in the Bidar case, the ECJ upheld the right to residence for a French national who had finished his secondary schooling in the United Kingdom and his eligibility to student funding. In this case, following the Court’s acceptance of the direct enforcement of Article 18 EC, the judges were able to make the comprehensive legal interpretation in his favour. As it was the case in Bidar case, Marian (2012) argued that according to Article 18 (1) of the EC Treaty the quasi-economic policy does not apply in students and some persons who do not exercise their fundamental freedoms of seeking jobs in a foreign country. Article 18 (2) eliminates the technicalities regarding the benchmarks of competencies and offers a proportional legal formula for the implementation of secondary regulations on the right to free movement. Baun (1995) indicated that Article 18 EC essentially improves and expands the liberty of movement, and does create an environment which is basically that of unfettered freedom. Limitations by states Larkins (2011) argued that despite the largely free movement of EU citizens within the jurisdiction of the supranational body, member states have established transitional regimes, which enable their citizens to enjoy limited access to employment opportunities in other foreign states under EU. By allowing EU member countries to enforce limitations on citizens of the recently acceded states, for up to seven years following their accession, it can be argued that the EU citizenship policy is a quasi-economic; one that is not based on equal treatment across board, but on citizen productivity (Baun, 1995). In light of this, the ECJ has created far-reaching repercussions from this mutual linking. Mann (2011) suggested that the primary concept in Martinez-Sala case is that EU citizens who stay in an EU member state on a consistent basis can count themselves protected under Article 12 provided the law is implemented fairly and consistently. In a nutshell, although the ECJ rulings have been attempting to balance the largely quasi-economic policy of citizenship of EU, through the Common Law avenue, the EU’s written law states otherwise. Wiesbrock (2012) pointed out that the only EU citizens can only enjoy fully the social and heritage rights. Conclusion The Maastricht Treaty, which brought to force EU Citizenship, can be traced to 1950s. The Treaty was built upon four primary tenets that all the 27 member countries are free enjoy, provided they meet the legal thresholds set out under the law. They include; the right to relocate and live within the EU jurisdiction; the right to take part in polls both locally and at the European level; the right to influence the legislative agenda of the European Parliament; and the right to consular protection. However, there are massive restrictions imposed on unproductive citizens across member states, a development that reverses the principle of fairness, unity and the application of general rules across boar. References Arcarazo, D.A. 2011. The Long-Term Residence Status as a Subsidiary Form of EU Citizenship: An Analysis of Directive 2003/109. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Baliga, W. 1994. Maastricht Treaty ratified after German court upholds union. Journal of Accountancy, 177(2), p.22. Baskaran, T. 2010. Supranational integration and national reorganization: On the Maastricht Treaty's impact on fiscal decentralization in EU countries. Constitutional Political Economy, 21(4), p.309-335. Baun, M.J. 1995. The Maastricht Treaty as high politics: Germany, France, and European integration. Political Science Quarterly, 110(4), p.605. Carrera, S., & Wiesbrock, A. 2010. Whose European Citizenship in the Stockholm Programme? The Enactment of Citizenship by Third Country Nationals in the EU. European Journal of Migration & Law, 12(3), pp.337-359. de Waele, H. 2010. EU Citizenship: Revisiting its Meaning, Place and Potential. European Journal of Migration & Law, 12(3), pp.319-336. Elsuwege, P.V., & Kochenov, D. 2011. On The Limits of Judicial Intervention: EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights. European Journal of Migration & Law., 13(4), pp.443- 466. Guery, G. 1992. European collective bargaining and the Maastricht Treaty. International Labour Review, 131(6), p.581. Guild, E. 2004. The Legal Elements of European Identity: EU Citizenship and Migration Law. London: Kluwer Law International. Hansen, P., & Hager, B.S. 2012. Politics of European Citizenship, The: Deepening Contradictions in Social Rights and Migration Policy. London: Berghahn Books. Larkins, C. 2011. Can the EU live up to the expectations of its child citizens? International Journal of Children's Rights, 19(3), pp.451-476. Likic-Brboric, B. 2011. EU Enlargement, Migration, and Asymmetric Citizenship: Political Economy of Inequality and the Demise of the European Social Model? Globalizations, 8(3), pp.277-294. Maas, W. 2007. Creating European Citizens. Paris: Rowman & Littlefield. Mann, D. 2011. The nature of union citizenship between autonomy and dependency on (member) state citizenship - a comparative analysis of the Rottmann Ruling, or: how to avoid a European Dred Scott Decision? Wisconsin International Law Journal, 29, p.484. Marian, I. 2012. The Legal Framework of EU Citizenship. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 7(4), pp.221-226. Shuibhne, N.N. 2010. The Resilience of EU Market Citizenship. Common Market Law Review, (47), 6, pp.1597-1628. Vatandaşliğin et al. 2010. Adventure of Citizenship: Citizenship In Nation State Of European Countries And Citizenship In EU: Beyond the Nation State. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(34), pp.116-137. Wiesbrock, A. 2012. Granting Citizenship-related Rights to Third-Country Nationals: An Alternative to the Full Extension of European Union Citizenship? European Journal of Migration & Law, 14(1), pp.63-94. Read More