国籍纠纷中的无国籍欧盟公民:欧盟法律保护失信者

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Constitutional Law Review Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1017/S1574019622000219
Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

定居,融入,归化一个欧盟公民,如果按照欧盟关于自由流动的法律精神,已经采取了坚定的步骤,在东道国实现“最深形式的一体化”,即归化,在这一过程中可能出现的危险,他将不会被欧盟法律完全抛弃这是法院在JY . C-118/20号案件中关于成员国在国籍法领域的自由裁量权的判决所传达的主要信息这个案例与它的前辈——罗特曼和特杰布斯——产生了共鸣;所有这三个案件都涉及《欧盟条约》第20条所引起的成员国关于个人在法律上丧失欧盟公民身份的义务JY也可以与Lounes的自由流动案件联系起来,该案件涉及一名在东道国入籍的欧盟公民,根据国家惯例,这导致其第三国国民在东道国失去基于欧盟自由流动法的居留权
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
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.
期刊最新文献
How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices A Doctrinal Approach to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Sweden Constitutional Courts as Guarantors of EU Charter Rights: A Rhetorical Perspective on Constitutional Change in Austria and Germany Constitutional Referrals by Ordinary Courts: A Platform for Judicial Dialogue and Another Toolkit for Judicial Resistance? Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1