Alokpa and Moudoulou, Union Citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Discuss the ECJ judgement of 10 October 2013 in Case C-86/12Alokpa and Moudoulouin the visible radiation of the instance jurisprudence on Union citizenship and on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The instance ofAlokpa and Moudoulou[ 1 ] concerns the right of Union citizens and their household members to travel and shack freely within the district of the Union. The ECJ ruled that Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38 grant Mrs Alokpa and her kids a right to go on to shack in the host Member State, as the kids are the subjects of another Member State and the parent is the minors’ primary carer. The Court so determined that if Article 21 did non use, being forced to go forth Luxembourg would non ensue in an duty to go forth the whole district of the EU, as the kids were Gallic subjects. Mrs Alokpa would hence hold the right to shack in France as the exclusive health professional of bush leagues. Therefore, the refusal of the Luxembourg governments did non represent a want of the echt enjoyment of the children’s Union rights.

The Court efficaciously says that whilst the European citizen bush leagues can non do usage of their Article 20 TFEU right in Luxembourg, they could travel to France and do usage of it there. The bush leagues would so be in the same place as the siblings in theZambrano[ 2 ] instance and that life in the state of their nationality the ECJ would hold to protect their Union citizenship rights provided for in the charter, peculiarly the right to household life.

The determination inZambranofacilitated the acquisition of citizenship rights in what had antecedently been considered ‘purely internal situations’ , thought to be beyond the range of Union jurisprudence. The ‘purely internal’ regulation gives rise to jobs of rearward favoritism, where ‘static’ EU citizens who have non exercised their right to liberate motion are at a disadvantage and unable to trust on EU jurisprudence. It is suggested that Union citizens may be motivated to do usage of their free motion rights in order to profit from the right to household reunion under the conditions laid down in Directing 2004/38. [ 3 ] This state of affairs, where motion within the district of the Union about becomes a practical duty alternatively of a right, necessarily raises the issue of possible maltreatment of the rights attached to EU citizenship. [ 4 ] In the yesteryear, the tribunal has tackled the issue of rearward favoritism by slackly happening a nexus to Union jurisprudence, such as inGarcia Avello[ 5 ] and later inZhu and Chen. [ 6 ] Here the ECJ explicitly stated that the exercising of the right of free motion is non a requirement to the application of Union jurisprudence on abode and held that a Union citizen with the nationality of one Member State residing in another Member State does show a sufficiently Union-linked state of affairs to raise Union jurisprudence sing the right to liberate motion and abode. This relates straight to the instance ofAlokpa and Moudoulou.

The subsequent instance ofMccarthy[ 7 ] had the consequence of extenuating slightly the potentially far-reaching deductions of the determination inZambrano. This instance called upon the Court to find whether a European citizen had a right to be issued with a abode card by the member province of which she was a national despite holding ne’er exercised her right of free motion. The motive behind this was to deduce a secondary right of abode under Union jurisprudence for her partner. The Court sidestepped the issue of household fusion and held that as she had an unconditioned right to shack in her place member province, she was non ‘deprived of the echt enjoyment’ of her citizenship rights by the determination to decline her a residence card. However, Lansbergen and Miller [ 8 ] submit that the tribunal did non see that a determination to behave the partner would however strip the claimant of her right to a household life provided by the charter. By happening that there was no want of echt enjoyment of the Union citizenship rights, the Court inMccarthyarguably undermines the determination inZambrano,as the EU citizen kids inZambranobesides had an unconditioned right to shack in their national province ; their ‘deprivation’ arose non from deficient protection of their ain residence but that of their household member.Mccarthyis criticised by Wiesbrock [ 9 ] as go forthing Union citizens in an unsatisfactory place, where it is progressively hard to set up when one’s Union citizenship rights are protected.

ALSO READ  Supreme Court Guidelines on Media Reporting on Sub Judice Matters

AG Sharpston [ 10 ] suggests that in order to rectify the issue of rearward favoritism, the right to travel should be disconnected from the right to shack. She advised the ECJ to admit the right to residency as a free-standing right for European citizens and to widen the bing instance jurisprudence to state of affairss in which no existent motion has taken topographic point. Furthermore, Sharpston considered that even if the Court should neglect to accept the right of abode as a freestanding right, violation of the citizen’s right to ‘move and reside’ within the district of the Union nevertheless occurs by forestalling them from exerting that right in the hereafter. This corresponds with the logical thinking inRottmann[ 11 ],where the Court for the first clip explicitly departed from the philosophy that a cross-border component is required to trip the application of EU jurisprudence. The Court merely observed that the national step at interest fell “by ground of its nature and its effects within the scope of EU law” [ 12 ] which would hold in consequence have caused the citizen to lose the rights conferred on them by the Treaties.

InDereci, [ 13 ] the Court clarified the standards that should be applied to separate between the range of application of EU jurisprudence and the countries that remain governed by national jurisprudence. The tribunal held that Article 20 TFEU applies merely to exceeding state of affairss in which the Union citizen has to go forth non merely the district of the Member State of which he is a national but the district of the Union as a whole. In the ECJ ‘s position, it will be for the mentioning tribunal to verify whether the challenged steps respect private and household life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court stressed nevertheless, that, in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter, Article 7 should merely use if the state of affairs of the appliers is covered by EU jurisprudence and therefore can non be used in a strictly internal state of affairs.

ALSO READ  An outline of the Community Service Order

The contrasting results inZambranoandMccarthyraised the inquiry whether the different position of the Union citizens in both instances ( minor kids and grownup spouse ) played a function in happening whether or non there was a want of citizenship rights. InDereci, the Court makes a direct nexus between the demand of dependence and the capacity to populate independently within the district of the Union. Therefore, it follows that theZambranoconcluding merely applies when inactive Union citizens would hold no pick but to follow their third-country household members out of the district of the Union on refusal of a right of abode in the state of which the citizen in inquiry is a national.

Sing the old instance jurisprudence on citizenship and the charter, I must reason that the determination inAlokpa and Moudoulouis a sound one. It is consistent with the opinion inDercei, that merely a state of affairs, in which refusal of residence to a third-country national household member would ensue in the European national holding to go forth the Union district due to dependency upon that household member, would strip the EU national of enjoyment of his cardinal Union rights. As Mrs Alokpa and her kids would non hold to go forth the district of the brotherhood as a consequence of Luxembourg’s refusal to allow a residence license, the kids are non deprived of the echt enjoyment of their citizenship rights. Although it could be argued that the children’s Article 21 right to freedom of motion would be impinged by holding to go forth the district of Luxembourg, despite the kids holding non themselves exercised this right, holding been born at that place. The burden is placed on the children’s national member province to supply for their Article 20 Union citizenship rights.

ALSO READ  The History Of The Surveillance Technologies Information Technology Essay


  1. Stanislas Adam and Peter Van Elsuwege, ( 2012 )Citizenship rights and the federal balance between the European Union and its member provinces: remark of DereciEuropean Law Review
  2. Anja Lansbergen and Nina Miller ( 2011 ) .Court of Justice of the European Union European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Equivocal Revolution? Decision of 8 March 2011, Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national d’emploi ( ONEM) European Constitutional Law Review
  3. Anja Wiesbrock, (2011 ) Extricating the “Union citizenship puzzle” ? The McCarthy instance,European Law Review
  4. H.van Eijken and S.A. de Vries [ 2011 ]A new path into the promised land? Bing a European citizen after Ruiz Zambrano, European Law Review
  5. C-135/08Rottmann[ 2010 ]
  6. C-148/02Garcia Avello[ 2003 ]
  7. C-200/02Zhu and Chen[ 2004 ]
  8. C-256/11Dereci and Others[ 2011 ]
  9. C-434/09Mccarthy[ 2011 ]
  10. C-34/09Ruiz Zambrano[ 2011 ]
  11. C-86/12Alokpa and Moudoulou[ 2013 ]
  12. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 30 September 2010