The chapter deals with the meaning of Union citizenship in the EU's external relations and, more specifically, the relations with Turkey and with Switzerland.
When the EEA Agreement was concluded in the early 1990s, it reflected, in the fields covered, the state of the then Community law, also with respect to the free movement of persons. Since then,... Show moreWhen the EEA Agreement was concluded in the early 1990s, it reflected, in the fields covered, the state of the then Community law, also with respect to the free movement of persons. Since then, both EEA and EU law have developed further, though with certain marked differences. Notably, the EU Treaty revision of Maastricht led to the introduction of Union citizenship. The fact that there is no corresponding concept in the EEA Agreement had led to certain challenges within the EEA with respect to the free movement of persons, due notably to the double nature of Directive 2004/38 as a further development of the free movement law of the Communities and a Union citizenship instrument. Today, the EEA and the EU rules are identical with respect to the market access rights of economic agents. In contrast, it is debated whether and to what extent the incorporation of Directive 2004/38 into the EEA legal system is indeed limited for those purposes. This relates in particular to case law of the EFTA Court on persons who are not economically active, where the Court, in the EEA context, gives Directive 2004/38 a broader interpretation than the CJEU does in the EU context. The EFTA Court’s aim, despite the lack of Union citizenship in EEA law, is to arrive at the same level of protection. Commentators speak about a particular understanding of homogeneity and of the Polydor principle. This approach raises questions also with respect to the external relations of the EU with other non-Member States, including notably the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following its withdrawal from EU membership (“Brexit”). Show less
This paper critically assesses the EU’s anti-piracy operation Atalanta in the light of the protection of Union citizens. The main question is to which extent a Union citizen threatened by pirates... Show moreThis paper critically assesses the EU’s anti-piracy operation Atalanta in the light of the protection of Union citizens. The main question is to which extent a Union citizen threatened by pirates off the coast of Somalia could rely on the promise of civis europaeus sum. The paper discusses the various legal aspects pertaining to the forceful protection of EU citizens in international law, EU constitutional law and the operational parameters of Atalanta. It argues that within the particular framework of the international effort to combat piracy, the protection of citizens by military force could be legal. Moreover, the protection of citizens outside the EU forms now one of the legally-binding general objectives of the Union. Yet, this objective is not reiterated in the operational mandate, which creates tension and confusion between the general objective and the CSDP instrument. The paper concludes that the mandate of Atalanta, by focussing entirely on universal objectives, is constitutionally incomplete and shows that the external dimension of Union citizenship is still underdeveloped. Show less
