A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration

• Date: 01 January 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00536.x
• Published date: 01 January 2011
• Author: Ferdinand Wollenschläger

eulj_5361..34

A New Fundamental Freedom beyond

Market Integration: Union Citizenship and

its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic

Paradigm of European Integration

Ferdinand Wollenschläger*

Abstract: The development of European integration from an economic to a political

community has become manifest not just in the continuous addition of non-economic

policy areas to the treaties. The introduction of Union citizenship (and its controversial

subsequent development in the European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence) has also trig-

gered a paradigm shift in one of the community’s core areas, the concept of negative

integration hitherto intrinsically linked to the internal market. Thus, neither the individu-

al’s quality as a market actor nor his/her involvement in a transnational economic activity

is a condition for enjoyment of the market freedoms’ core guarantees, these being a right

of residence and a far-reaching claim to national treatment in other Member States, as

well as a prohibition on restrictions to the free movement of persons. A new fundamental

freedom beyond market integration (‘Grundfreiheit ohne Markt’) has emerged. This

process, whose consequences for the welfare systems of the wealthier Member States have

been fiercely discussed for some time, however, also threatens to curtail severely the

regulatory autonomy at the national level.

I Le citoyen à la une de l’Europe

‘Le citoyen à la une de l’Europe’1—calls of this kind to build European integration

around the citizen were first voiced at the beginning of the 1970s,2before finding

prominent expression in the institutionalisation of European citizenship under the

Treaty of Maastricht. Despite its being initially deemed no more than a symbolic

* This article explores ideas first developed in the author’s book Grundfreiheit ohne Markt. Die Herausbil-

dung der Unionsbürgerschaft im unionsrechtlichen Freizügigkeitsregime (Mohr Siebeck, 2007), and is based

on a German article published under the title ‘Die Unionsbürgerschaft und ihre Dynamik für den

Integrationsprozess jenseits des Marktes’ (2009) Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 1. An earlier

version of this article was presented at the Eleventh Biennial International Conference of the European

Union Studies Association (EUSA) in Los Angeles, USA in April 2009.

1This quotation echoes the title of an article by A. Lhoest, ‘Le citoyen à la une de l’Europe’, (1975) Revue

Du Marché Commun Et De L’Union Européenne 431.

2cf for an account of the rise of the idea of a ‘Citizens’ Europe’ F. Wollenschläger, Grundfreiheit ohne

Markt. Die Herausbildung der Unionsbürgerschaft im unionsrechtlichen Freizügigkeitsregime (Mohr

Siebeck, 2007), at 91 et seq.

European Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2011, pp. 1–34.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

gesture—or, in Joseph H.H. Weiler’s famous dictum, as ‘little more than a cynical

exercise in public relations on the part of the High Contracting Parties’3—recent

decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) underline that Union citizenship is

destined ‘to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’.4

Contrary to what the term ‘Union citizenship’ might suggest, the judicial evolution

of this new status did not focus on Union citizens as citizens of the Union, but on their

legal position within the Member States. The new status weakened the significance of

national citizenship(s) and of national frontiers. Certainly, this development was

already implicit in the market freedoms enshrined in the EEC Treaty (section II).

However, ever since the end of the 1990s, a series of highly controversial and integra-

tionist rulings on Union citizenship by the ECJ5has decoupled these instruments of

negative integration from their original focus on economic actors and economic

activities—a process whose consequences for the welfare systems of the wealthier

Member States have long been fiercely debated and which threatens also to curtail

3J.H.H. Weiler, ‘Citizenship and Human Rights’, in J.A. Winter et al (eds), Reforming the Treaty on

European Union (Kluwer Law International, 1996), 57, at 68; see also J.H.H. Weiler, ‘Les droits des

citoyens européens’ (1996) Revue Du Marché Unique Européen 35, at 36 et seq; T. Kostakopoulou,

Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union (Manchester University Press, 2001), at 66:

‘weak institution; a pale shadow of its national counterpart’; T. Kostakopoulou, ‘Nested “Old” and

“New” Citizenship in the European Union’, (1999) 5 Columbia Journal of European Law 389, at 391;

J.-D. Mouton, ‘La citoyenneté de l’Union: passé, présent et avenir’, in G. Ress and T. Stein (eds),

Vorträge, Reden und Berichte aus dem Europa-Institut. Nr. 282 (Europa Institut, 1996) 3, at 12 and 18;

H.U. Jessurun d’Oliveira, ‘Union Citizenship: Pie in the Sky?’, in A. Rosas and E. Antola (eds), A

Citizens’ Europe (Sage, 1995) 126, at 141: ‘pie in the sky’; ibid, at 147: ‘a symbolic plaything without

substantive content’. However, some authors have emphasised the potential of EU citizenship; cf C.

Tomuschat, ‘Staatsbürgerschaft—Unionsbürgerschaft—Weltbürgerschaft’, in J. Drexl et al (eds),

Europäische Demokratie (Nomos, 1999) 73, at 74: in the long run, the introduction of EU Citizenship

might prove to be the most important decision taken at the inter-governmental conference, even more

important than introducing the Euro; see further D. O’Keeffe, ‘Union Citizenship’, in D. O’Keeffe (ed),

Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (Chancery Law Publishing, 1994) 87, at 106: ‘The importance of the

Union citizenship provisions lies not in their content but rather in the promise they hold out for the

future’.

4cf, eg, ECJ, Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31.

5ECJ, Case C-85/96, Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691; Case C-274/96, Bickel and Franz [1998] ECR

I-7637; Grzelczyk,ibid; Case C-378/97, Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207; Case C-135/99, Elsen [2000] ECR

I-10409; Case C-224/98, D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191; Case C-413/99, Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091;

Case C-148/02, Avello [2003] ECR I-11613; Case C-138/02, Collins [2004] ECR I-2703; Case C-224/02,

Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763; Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573; Case C-200/02, Chen/Zhu [2004]

ECR I-9925; Case C-209/03, Dany Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119; Case C-403/03, Schempp [2005] ECR I-6421;

Case C-258/04, Ioannidis [2005] ECR I-8275; Case C-96/04, Standesamt Niebüll [2006] ECR I-3561; Case

C-406/04, De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947; Case C-192/05, Tas-Hagen [2006] ECR I-10451; Case C-520/04,

Turpeinen [2006] ECR I-10685; Case C-50/06, EC v Netherlands [2007] ECR I-4383; Case C-318/05, EC v

Germany [2007] ECR I-6957; Case C-76/05, Schwarz [2007] ECR I-6849; Joined Cases C-11 and 12/06,

Morgan and Bucher [2007] ECR I-9161; Case C-152/05, EC v Germany [2008] ECR I-39; Case C-398/06,

EC v Netherlands [2008] ECR I-56; Case C-499/06, Nerkowska [2008] ECR I-3993; Case C-33/07, Jipa

[2008] ECR I-5157; Case C-127/08, Metock et al [2008] ECR I-6241; Case C-353/06, Grunkin and Paul

[2008] ECR I-7639; Case C-158/07, Förster [2008] ECR I-8507; Case C-221/07, Zablocka-Weyhermüller

[2008] ECR I-9029; Case C-524/06, Huber [2008] ECR I-9705; joined Cases C-22 and C-23/08, Vatsouras

und Koupatantze [2009] ECR I-4585; Case C-103/08, Gottwald [2009] ECR I-9117; Case 535/08, Pignataro

[2009] ECR I-50; Case C-135/08; Rottmann (unreported); Case C-310/08, Ibrahim (unreported); C-480/08,

Teixeira (unreported); Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano (unreported); pending: Case C-162/09, Lassal

(unreported); Case C-145/09, Tsakouridis (opinion of AG Bot of 8 June 2010); Case C-208/09, Sayn-

Wittgenstein (opinion of AG Sharpston of 14 October 2010); Case C-325/09, Dias; Case C-384/09,

Infusino; Case C-391/09, Runevic

ˇ-Vardyn and Wardyn; Case C-434/09, McCarthy.

European Law Journal Volume 17

2© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

severely regulatory autonomy at the national level transcending issues of social

solidarity (section III).6The emergence of a new fundamental freedom beyond market

integration (‘Grundfreiheit ohne Markt’),7resulting from this development, shifts the

economic paradigm of European integration and raises the issue of the future signifi-

cance of fundamental freedoms as a distinct legal category (section IV). Finally,

the development can be contextualised in the emergence of a European citizenship

(section V).

II Market Freedoms and Market Integration

Integrating the national markets of the original six Member States into a Common

Market was the EEC’s primary goal as enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome (cf Article

2 EEC). Achieving it required mobilising the production factor of labour within the

community—or, as the Spaak Report put it, combining labour and capital as factors of

production.8Unemployed persons from economically underdeveloped regions lacking

jobs (at the time especially Italy) were to be enabled to move to regions with a shortage

of labour (notably Germany).9Likewise, the self-employed were to be enabled to

6The literature on Union citizenship is abundant: cf, eg, A. von Bogdandy and S. Bitter, ‘Unionsbürger-

schaft und Diskriminierungsverbot’, in Essays in Honour of Zuleeg (Nomos, 2002) 309; C. Calliess, ‘Der

Unionsbürger: Status, Dogmatik und Dynamik’, in A. Hatje and P.M. Huber, ‘Unionsbürgerschaft und

soziale Rechte’, (2007) Supplement 1 Europarecht 7; M. Dougan, ‘Fees, Grants, Loans and Dole Cheques:

Who Covers the Costs of Migrant Education within the EU?’, (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review

943; M. Dougan, ‘The Constitutional Dimension to the Case Law on Union Citizenship’, (2006) 31

European Law Review 613; A. Epiney, ‘The Scope of Article 12 EC: Some Remarks on the Influence of

European Citizenship’, (2007) 13 European Law Journal 611; K. Hailbronner, ‘Die Unionsbürgerschaft

und das Ende rationaler Jurisprudenz durch den EuGH?’, (2004) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2185;

K. Hailbronner, ‘Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits’, (2005) 42 Common Market Law

Review 1245; P.M. Huber, ‘Die gleiche Freiheit der Unionsbürger’, (2008) 68 Zeitschrift für ausländisches

öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 307; F.G. Jacobs, ‘Citizenship of the European Union—A Legal

Analysis’, (2007) 13 European Law Journal 591; S. Kadelbach, ‘Union Citizenship’, in A. von Bogdandy

and J. Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Hart, 2009), 443; D. Kochenov, ‘Ius Tractum

of Many Faces: European Citizenship and the Difficult Relationship Between Status and Rights’, (2009)

15 Columbia Journal Of European Law 169; J. Kokott, ‘Die Freizügigkeit der Unionsbürger als neue

Grundfreiheit’, in Essays in Honour of Tomuschat (Engel, 2006), 207; Kostakopoulou, Citizenship,op cit

n3supra; Kostakopoulou, ‘Nested “Old” and “New” Citizenship’, op cit n3supra, at 389; Kostakopou-

lou, ‘European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future’, (2007) 13 European Law Journal 623; W. Maas,

Creating European Citizens (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); W. Obwexer, Grundfreiheit Freizügigkeit

(Manz, 2009); D. Rabenschlag, Leitbilder der Unionsbürgerschaft (Nomos, 2009); C. Schönberger,

Unionsbürger (Mohr Siebeck, 2005); E. Spaventa, ‘Seeing the Wood despite the Trees? On the Scope of

Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects’, (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 13;

E. Spaventa, Free Movement of Persons in the European Union (Kluwer Law International, 2007);

A. Tryfonidou, ‘In Search of the Aim of the EC Free Movement of Persons Provisions: Has the Court of

Justice missed the Point?’, (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 1591; Wollenschläger, op cit n2supra;

F. Wollenschläger, ‘Freizügigkeit in einer EU der 27’, (2009) 47 AWR-Bulletin 110; F. Wollenschläger,

‘Die Unionsbürgerschaft und ihre Dynamik für den Integrationsprozess jenseits des Marktes’, (2009)

Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 1; F. Wollenschläger, ‘Vernetzte Angehörigkeiten. Staats- und

Unionsbürgerschaft als komplementäre Zugehörigkeitsverhältnisse im Mehrebenensystem Europäische

Union’, in S. Boysen et al (eds), Netzwerke (Nomos, 2007), 104.

7See the title of my book op cit n2 supra. Cf further ‘Editorial Comments’, (2008) 45 Common Market Law

Review 1, at 3, mentioning a ‘fifth Treaty freedom’ and a ‘fifth fundamental freedom’; Kokott, ibid: ‘neue

Grundfreiheit’; Obwexer, ibid.

8P.-H. Spaak, Bericht der Delegationsleiter an die Aussenminister vom 21.04.1956 (1956), at 18.

9cf H.J. Küsters, Die Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (Nomos, 1982), at 175 et seq.

January 2011 New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration

3

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.