Paper Titles & Abstracts

The case law on EU citizenship at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has gone through a stormy evolution, in particular in the past decade. In 2001, the CJEU identified Union citizenship as 'destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States'. Nowadays, this status can produce entitlements for Member States nationals, even without exercising their right to free movement within the Union. The recent judgments Ruiz Zambrano, Dereci and Iida imply that Article 20 TFEU has direct effect, and can be relied upon by EU citizens against public authorities in their own Member State. These landmark cases do not operate in a legal vacuum at the CJEU. In day-to-day legal practice, national courts are the natural forum for securing judicial protection of EU citizens' rights. However, a crucial outstanding question is how Member State courts actually deal with the emerging concept of EU citizenship. This paper aims to map and frame the effect of the CJEU's landmark judgments on Union citizenship in the court practice of two Member States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Firstly, the significance of the new line of case law for the constitutionalisation of EU citizenship will be discussed. Secondly, the paper addresses the (potential) problems and challenges in the context of national court practice, and elaborate on the constitutionalising effects of EU citizenship for the role of national courts in the EU's judicial system.