Can it be argued that there exists a concept of Nordic citizenship, founded on inter-Nordic cooperation and its relationship with EU law and EEA law? Researchers from all five Nordic States (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) explore the tensions, gaps and overlaps arising from the interplay of EU citizenship, EEA law and the Nordic initiatives that aim to facilitate cross-border mobility of persons in the region. The analysis takes a dual approach. Firstly, it tracks the legal development of nationality law in Nordic states. Secondly, it sets out the rights of residence and access to social rights that follow from the three different regimes. It asks if the Nordic States, through their regional cooperation, are ‘going beyond’ EU free movement law, making naturalisation to a citizenship in a Nordic state particularly attractive. This important new work gives a unique perspective on EU citizenship and free movement law.

While solidarity as an ideal in the legal relationship between a host Member State and the non-national Union citizen has all but vanished from the discourse of EU free movement law, it has resurged in another line of case law concerning Union citizenship. The relationship between the Member States and their own nationals is at the centre of the case law on loss of Union citizenship rights under Article 20 TFEU. The bond of nationality between the individual and the state is there designated as one of ‘solidarity’ and ‘good faith’. This article argues that solidarity, as an ideal, is also relevant for understanding the case law dealing with returning, or naturalising Union citizens who have made use of freedom of movement under Article 21 TFEU. The article provides a discussion on the various expressions of solidarity as a component of the ideal bond of nationality between a Union citizen and their home Member State. Conclusively, it is argued that the meaning of the bond of nationality will continue to develop together with the legal evolution of Union citizenship.

This article analyses the legal origins of the ‘substance of rights’ doctrine, and its judicial development since its creation in landmark Union citizenship cases over a decade ago. It is demonstrated how the status of Union citizenship has evolved from being a proclaimed fundamental status for the individual in a lawful cross-border situation, to an increasingly operational and legally effective status regardless of the nature of the free movement situation. Under a genuinely substantive status of Union citizenship, any and all Member States are obligated to neither restrict freedom of movement under art. 21 TFEU, nor deprive, de jure or de facto, a Union citizen of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of Union citizenship rights under art. 20 TFEU. Thereby, the relevance of art. 20 TFEU is no longer reserved to the Union citizen’s relationship to their home Member State. In addition, it is argued that, as the jurisdictional spheres of art. 21 TFEU and 20 TFEU merge, the legal mechanisms of EU fundamental rights protection should also be streamlined across Directive 2004/38, art. 21 TFEU and art. 20 TFEU; thereby giving further substance to the citizenship ideal of civis europaeus sum.