Citizenship Cases

Case C-85/96, Maria Martinez Sala – Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

Refusal to grant child benefit was discriminatory and could not be justified. This was direct discrimination that could not be justified. EU citizenship activated the equal treatment rule, not economic activity.

1 of 18

Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk - Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons - equal treatment

Union citizenship is destines to be the fundamental status of nationals of MSs, enjoy same treatment in law irrespective of nationality. Allowance to facilitate studies rejected on grounds of nationality. Direct discrimination – unjustified.

2 of 18

Case C-413/99, Baumbast - Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

Citizens have a right to reside in another MS without pursuing an economic activity – conferred in Art 21(1) TFEU. MS can expect of citizens not to become a burden on benefits.

3 of 18

Case C-209/03, Bidar – Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

Indirect discrimination ok if based on objective considerations independent of nationality and is proportionate to the aim of the national provisions. MS can give student loans if demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society.

4 of 18

Case C-158/07, Forster - Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons – student grants

Residence requirements are indirect discrimination. If rule is compatible with integration requirement then it will be allowed. The requirement of prior residence for five years is proportionate.

5 of 18

Case C-333/13, Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig – Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

MS are not required to give benefits straight away. Must have sufficient resources – court explained the directive seeks to stop people living of the benefit system. This in practice marks a departure from cases like Grzelczyk and Martinez Sala.

6 of 18

Case C-299/14, Garcia-Nieto and Others - Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

individual circumstances should be taken into account – not required for periods of residence shorter than three months. Article 24(2) of the Directive explicitly says so with regard to persons other than workers and self-employed.

7 of 18

Case C-308/14, Commission v UK - Establishing the rights of economically inactive persons

The checking of compliance with conditions for the right of residence is not cared out systematically and consequently is not contrary to the requirements of Art 14(2) of the directive.

8 of 18

Case C-244/98, D’Hoop – Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

Equal treatment requirement can be relied upon even with claims to home MS. Legislation placed a disadvantage on her because she has used her right of free movement. Justifications can be given.

9 of 18

Case C-11/06, Morgan and Bucher - Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

Nationals applying for grants for studying in another MS. Condition on the grant was they had to study in Germany for a year and should continue only that same education or training in another Member State. Not objectively proportionate.

10 of 18

Case C-523/11 and Case 585/11, Prinz and Seeberger - Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

Individual circumstances have to be considered for applicant – objective consideration independent of nationality and proportionality. Rejected because they did not satisfy a requirement of. The measure creates a disadvantage.

11 of 18

Case C-200/02, Zhu and Chen - Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

Woman gave birth in Ireland. She had sufficient funds and could reside there for an indefinite period. The mother was the primary carer of the child who has the right of residence, had to go with the child – had right of residence.

12 of 18

Case C-135/08, Rottman - Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

Austrian obtained German nationality by deception. EU citizenship not lost. MS may withdraw the nationality to serve public interest aims, but such a decision has to comply with the proportionality principle.

13 of 18

Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano - Claims against the member state of origin (the home member state)

In the absence of a cross-border link, the directive could not apply. Art 20 precludes national measures which depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status’ as EU citizens

14 of 18

Case C-434/09, McCarthy – EU citizenship in the absence of a cross-border link (ii): The refinement period

Art 3 (beneficiaries) does not apply to Union citizens who have never exercised free movement rights, and despite dual nationality the Citizenship Directive does not apply. The same applies to family members – rights are not autonomous.

15 of 18

Case C-256/11, Dereci - EU citizenship in the absence of a cross-border link (ii): The refinement period

Clarified the Ruzi Zambrano conditions for a direct reliance on Art 20. Examined the application of the provisions of the Treaty.

16 of 18

Case C-650/13, Delvigne – the political rights of EU citizenship

Art 39(2) of the Charter – when MS decide on who is entitled to vote for the European elections, not an EU law area, limitations on the right need to be proportionate.

17 of 18

Case C-145/04, Spain v UK - the political rights of EU citizenship

Can vote if you have close links to MS resident there if that MS has decided to grant them such a right.

18 of 18

Get Revising

Citizenship Cases

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: