{"title":"国籍纠纷中的无国籍欧盟公民:欧盟法律保护失信者","authors":"Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To reside, to integrate, to naturalise. A Union citizen who, in accordance with the spirit of EU law on free movement, has taken firm steps towards achieving the ‘deepest form of integration’ in a host member state, i.e. naturalisation, will not be completely abandoned by EU law during the possible perils of that process.1 This is the main message of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-118/20, JY, concerning member state discretion in the area of nationality law.2 The case resonates with its predecessors, Rottmann and Tjebbes; all three cases deal with member state obligations arising from Article 20 TFEU regarding an individual’s de jure loss of Union citizenship.3 JY can also be linked to the free movement case of Lounes, concerning a Union citizen who naturalised in the host member state, which, under national practices, led to the loss of the EU free movement lawbased residence rights in the host member state for her third-country national","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"556 - 571"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stateless Union Citizens in a Nationality Conundrum: EU Law Safeguarding Against Broken Promises\",\"authors\":\"Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1574019622000219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To reside, to integrate, to naturalise. A Union citizen who, in accordance with the spirit of EU law on free movement, has taken firm steps towards achieving the ‘deepest form of integration’ in a host member state, i.e. naturalisation, will not be completely abandoned by EU law during the possible perils of that process.1 This is the main message of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-118/20, JY, concerning member state discretion in the area of nationality law.2 The case resonates with its predecessors, Rottmann and Tjebbes; all three cases deal with member state obligations arising from Article 20 TFEU regarding an individual’s de jure loss of Union citizenship.3 JY can also be linked to the free movement case of Lounes, concerning a Union citizen who naturalised in the host member state, which, under national practices, led to the loss of the EU free movement lawbased residence rights in the host member state for her third-country national\",\"PeriodicalId\":45815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"556 - 571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000219\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000219","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Stateless Union Citizens in a Nationality Conundrum: EU Law Safeguarding Against Broken Promises
To reside, to integrate, to naturalise. A Union citizen who, in accordance with the spirit of EU law on free movement, has taken firm steps towards achieving the ‘deepest form of integration’ in a host member state, i.e. naturalisation, will not be completely abandoned by EU law during the possible perils of that process.1 This is the main message of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-118/20, JY, concerning member state discretion in the area of nationality law.2 The case resonates with its predecessors, Rottmann and Tjebbes; all three cases deal with member state obligations arising from Article 20 TFEU regarding an individual’s de jure loss of Union citizenship.3 JY can also be linked to the free movement case of Lounes, concerning a Union citizen who naturalised in the host member state, which, under national practices, led to the loss of the EU free movement lawbased residence rights in the host member state for her third-country national
期刊介绍:
The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.