Acceso usuarios
Dimitry Kochenov, David A.J.G. de Groot
The Court of Justice outlawed the deprivation of EU citizenship in the context of the swaps of nationalities of the Member States of the European Union. Although this outcome is both welcome and long-awaited, the decision falls short of expectations at several levels. Most notably, it ignores the very essence of EU citizenship and European integration, emerging as far removed from an optimal outcome. The Grand Chamber established that traffic violations are not a proportionate justification to effectively deprive a person of her EU citizenship, but did not outlaw the requirement of renunciation of the previously held EU nationality when naturalizing in a Member State of residence. It is now clear, however, that the situations where a renunciation of a previous Member State nationality is required before naturalizing in the Member State of residence, are unquestionably within the scope of EU law and Rottmann / Tjebbes-proportionality is required. This may sound obvious but in reality it was not, as the crucial Grand Chamber case of JY decided on January 18 2022 demonstrates. This is a significant yet predictable addition to the edifice of EU citizenship post-Rottmann. Regrettably, the forward-looking judgment is myopic up to the point of an error of judgement as to the fundamental challenges at play in the factual constellation at hand, as we explain.
