Over the last two decades, the Greater Copenhagen Region, spanning the border between Denmark and Sweden, has emerged as a hub for economic activity and development in Scandinavia. In 2023, cross-border employment reached a record high of 20 500 people. Despite its dynamic economy, marked by high employment and low unemployment, the region faces internal inequalities in labour market performance. Relatively high unemployment rates on the Swedish side coincide with increasing labour and skills shortages, especially on the Danish side of the border. Additionally, third-country nationals (non-EU citizens) residing in the region have yet to fully benefit from the steady integration of the Greater Copenhagen labour market. This report examines barriers to cross-border mobility, particularly for third-country nationals, and offers recommendations to regional and national governments to help the region achieve its full potential. It also explores ways to better co-ordinate employment and skills policies to foster cross-border labour mobility and inclusion. Insights and recommendations are informed by detailed reviews of three other EU cross-border regions: the Greater Region, the Meuse-Rhine Region and the Austrian-German border area.

Union citizens who claim family reunification rights against their home Member State based on the exercise of freedom of movement under Article 21(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) might be suspected of abuse of Union law. The concept of genuine residence, introduced in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment C-456/12 O. and B. may, together with time, serve to rebut such accusations and affirm the accompanying family member’s right to derive a right of residence from the Union citizen in the latter’s home Member State. The article analyses the CJEU judgments in Case C-456/12 O. and B., Case C-165/16, Lounes, and Case C-230/17, Deha Altiner and Ravn to assess the various ways that temporal factors inform the understanding of what constitutes a created, strengthened or continuous family life, as well as the relevance of the timing in establishing a family relationship. The analysis finds that fixed normative time limits might well serve a function to avert abuse of rights, but risks blurring the reality of family life and the actual need for protection of residence rights of family members to Union citizens in free movement situations.

The chapter discusses the questions of the legal meaning of Union citizenship as well as of who should be included in its status. It particularly focuses on how more could be done at the EU level to integrate the millions of lawfully residing third-country nationals in the EU into the internal market. This could in part be done by broadening the personal scope of the right to free movement in the EU, so that it becomes accessible to more persons than the Member States’ own citizens. Simultaneously, it is argued, the status of Union citizenship could be given a deeper legal meaning, detached from a dependency on freedom of movement, but channelling the values of the EU, such as respect for the rule of law and adherence to the fundamental rights guarantees of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. The examples of case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as Ruiz Zambrano, Delvigne and IN, are given to show the legal forcefulness of Union citizenship without freedom of movement, as well as the legal broadening of the personal scope of freedom of movement respectively.

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.