tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post2893520907090851957..comments2024-02-25T10:22:38.186+00:00Comments on The European Citizen: Citizen ZambranoEurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-78821816380137815852015-01-22T13:27:23.896+00:002015-01-22T13:27:23.896+00:00Thank you very much for this post,I think there sh...Thank you very much for this post,I think there should be equality before the law and there should not be discrimination.Uba Babshttp://www.fuoye.edu.ngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-91553038328511442372011-05-12T19:47:37.414+01:002011-05-12T19:47:37.414+01:00@ EU Citizen
Thanks! I've just read the judgm...@ EU Citizen<br /><br />Thanks! I've just read the judgment and I'm writing a blog post on it now. I agree that the Back to the Future model has been unfortunately preserved...<br /><br />@ Nina<br /><br />Thanks! I'm afraid I don't know the name of the court, though I think it was their constitutional court. The Court could make clear that EU law does not permit reverse discrimination, but my immediate reaction after reading McCarthy is that the Back to the Future model of citizenship is the main issue, and reverse discrimination hasn't been properly considered by the court. It will be interesting to see how it develops, particularly if an explicit question is referred, though "Back to the Future citizenship" limits the opportunity to do so.Eurocentrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-72859914666151471472011-05-06T17:54:05.064+01:002011-05-06T17:54:05.064+01:00Excellent analysis. I'm interested in the rev...Excellent analysis. I'm interested in the reverse discrimination aspect and think that McCarthy doesnt rule out that thats what the Court was doing in Zambrano. Can you tell me the name of the decision at the Belgian Constituional Court that you mention that prohibits reverse discrimination? Thanks! Great piece!Ninanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-242917995897889752011-05-06T11:00:58.450+01:002011-05-06T11:00:58.450+01:00really good blog entry... I guess the latest ECJ r...really good blog entry... I guess the latest ECJ ruling from May 5, 2011 confirms however (and in my opinion unfortunately) the Back to the Future Citizenship model: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-05/cp110043en.pdfEU citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558566744045196558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-90044425095471304172011-05-05T11:41:29.546+01:002011-05-05T11:41:29.546+01:00It can be interpreted that the CJEU followed Sharp...It can be interpreted that the CJEU followed Sharpston's right to reside interpretation, but to me the judgment is too vague to provide a certain basis for that. The references to the undefined content of Union citizenship, the age of the children (and their lack of ability to exercise their rights independently of their parents) and the reference to the territory of the Union (without reference to the relevance of the territory of Belgium itself qualifying as [for lack of a better term] sufficient Union territory for the purposes of citizenship) heavily suggest a "Back to the Future" model approach.<br /><br />However, I agree that in the long term the Court will develop this further, and clearly cast it as the case establishing the "right to reside". It seems that the Court is dipping its toe in the water and, unless there's a big political or legal reaction against it in the Member States, it will probably stick to Sharpston's line. The "Back to the Future" impression I get from the case is probably the Court's exit-strategy in the case of an adverse reaction, so it can limit the development and claim that it's a small extention of well-established case law.<br /><br />As a Court dealing with constitutional issues, the CJEU has to act in a politically sensitive way to some degree, but I'm disappointed that the judgment isn't clearer. We can guess the direction the law might travel in, but it could still depend on the cases brought before the Court and, unfortunately, not enough on a cleary reasoned, overarching judicial view on European citizenship.Eurocentrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-57267675578830012532011-04-29T18:30:27.327+01:002011-04-29T18:30:27.327+01:00While I agree the CJEU definitely could have been ...While I agree the CJEU definitely could have been far more explicit, I think it's clear enough that the court went with the 'two independent rights'-interpretation of the infamous little 'and' in art. 20.<br /><br />Since the Zambrano-children in fact WERE awarded a right of residence in their own member state without ever having moved anywhere else in the Union, the court tacitly agreed with General Advocate Sharpston in her analysis of art. 20.<br /><br />In addition, I find it a curious conclusion that the rights conferred upon citizens of the Union should be dependant on the AGE of said citizen?<br /><br />If a minor child citizen has a right of residence in his or her own member state of course so does an adult citizen as well.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />MSH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com