This book critically analyses the case law on EU citizenship in relation to its personal free movement rights, its status on the primary law level, and EU fundamental rights protection. The book exposes the legal space where EU citizenship variably loses or gains legal relevance, and questions how this space can be overcome.

Through a thorough analysis of the core personal free movement rights of residence, family reunification, equal treatment and equal political participation, the book demonstrates how the development of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has generated a two-tiered legal concept of EU citizenship. Depending on the nature of the legal claim at hand, EU citizenship may appear as a poor legal personhood for exercising free movement rights; sometimes pushing the individual who is in a factual cross-border situation out of the scope of Union law. Contrastingly, in other strands of the jurisprudence, we see EU citizenship and its primary law levelled-rights stretch the jurisdictional scope of Union law, triggering the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights for review of the individual case.

The book enhances the understanding of the legal concept of EU citizenship in Union law and contributes to the debate on the future development of EU citizenship, its relationship to the Charter, and the strength of its legal position for the person who exercises freedom of movement. 

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.

The European Union Member States are under the obligation to ensure that Union citizens may exercise freedom of movement without encountering unjustified restrictions or otherwise discriminatory treatment. Whether private parties are also directly obligated under Union law to respect the ban on nationality discrimination in contractual agreements is a more contested issue. Formal public law structures in a host Member State can nevertheless make it difficult in practice for a non-national Union citizen to access both public benefits and private services on equal terms with resident nationals. This chapter looks at the example of Sweden, which, like its neighbouring Denmark, Finland and Norway, relies heavily on a national public law administrative system of residence registration of all its inhabitants, primarily for the purpose of taxation, and control of national migration within the State. The significance of being registered is however greater than what is reflected normatively when looking at Swedish public law, since, to navigate in Swedish public and private society without a residence registration may in fact pose great practical difficulties.

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.

The paper of Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius focuses on personal identity numbers in Sweden and Denmark. This paper looks into formal and informal structures, which organise society in a host member state and which can make it difficult for a non-national Union citizen to, in practice, access public and private services on equal terms with resident nationals. It appears that although a personal identity number is of significant practical importance for residing in and taking part of society in Sweden and Denmark, the fact that the possession of a personal identity number is widely required by both public and private organisations, leads to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality, which is incompatible with the key principle of non-discrimination underlying the free movement of persons, and thus a restriction on the exercise of freedom of movement.

Under EU free movement law, caregivers may derive a right to reside from a child who is enjoying rights granted under Union law. This article puts three different legal routes to such derived residence rights next to one another, as interpreted and applied in judgments from Baumbast and R. to K.A., to determine their commonalities, divergences, and potential conflicts. The article exposes how recent legal developments have put into question the relevance of the legal basis for derived residence rights of children and their primary caregivers in Article 10 of the Workers Regulation 492/2011, while expanding the scope of application of Article 20 TFEU; prompting a need for further clarification in this area of Union law.

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.