¹ Williams, A, The Ethos of Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar.

² Ibid, for notable criticism. See also A Somek, ‘Europe: From Emancipation to Empowerment’ (2013) University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 13/16.

³ Weiler, JHH, ‘Bread and Circus: The State of the European Union’ (1998) 4 Columbia Journal of European Law 223 Google Scholar.

⁴ See, eg, Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 3 CMLR 10; Van Elsuwege, P and Kochenov, D, ‘On the Limits of Judicial Intervention: EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights’ (2011) 13 European Jounral of Migration and Law 443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ See, eg, D Kukovec, ‘A Critique of the Rhetoric of Common Interest in the European Union Legal Discourse’ (2012) Harvard Law School IGLP Working Paper.

⁶ See Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘The Resilience of EU Market Citizenship’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 1597 for a sound defence of ‘market citizenship’Google Scholar.

⁷ Williams (n 1).

⁸ D Kochenov, ‘Citizenship without Respect’ (2010) NYU Law School Jean Monnet Working Paper 8/10.

⁹ See de Búrca, G, Kochenov, D and Williams, A (eds), Europe’s Justice Deficit? (Oxford, Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2014) for one of the first attempts to approach this issue.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Neyer, J, The Justification of Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also his debate with Danny Nicol in the pages of the Journal of Common Market Studies: Neyer, J, ‘Justice, Not Democracy: Legitimacy in the European Union’ (2010) 48 Journal of Common Market Studies 903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicol, D, ‘Can Justice Dethrone Democracy in the European Union? A Reply to Jürgen Neyer’ (2012) 50(3) Journal of Common Market Studies 508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neyer, J, ‘Who is Afraid of Justice? A Rejoinder to Danny Nicol’ (2012) 50 Journal of Common Market Studies 523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Allott, P, The Health of Nations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2002) 219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Allott hints at the fact that it is impossible to justify the EU’s constitutional authority via 28 different national doctrines and connects the ideology of a national constitutional order to the doctrinal inability of national legal scholars to cope with reality. See also Schütze, R, From Dual to Cooperative Federalism (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a fascinating analysis of the EU’s constitutional legal essence.

¹² Morgan, G, ‘European Political Integration and the Need for Justification’ (2007) 14 Constellations 332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neyer, The Justification of Europe (n 10). See also Sissenich, B, ‘Justification and Identity in European Integration’ (2007) 14 Constellations 347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Remember his ‘Ithaca’, for instance, among other poems.

¹⁴ Weiler, JHH, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo: Europe’s Constitutional Sonderweg ’ in Weiler, JHH and Wind, M, (eds), European Constitutionalism beyond the State (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2003) 7 Google Scholar (clarifying that a democracy of vile persons will be vile).

¹⁵ JHH Weiler, ‘Europe in Crisis: On “Political Messianism”, “Legitimacy” and the “Rule of Law”’ (2012) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 248.

¹⁶ de Búrca, G, ‘Europe’s raison d’être ’ in Kochenov, D and Amtenbrink, F (eds), European Union’s Shaping of the International Legal Order (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2013), 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Now reflected in arts 2 and 3 TEU.

¹⁸ Williams (n 1); Somek (n 2); Neyer, The Justification of Europe (n 10). See also their contributions in de Búrca, Kochenov and Williams (n 9).

¹⁹ This is not the first time that I have voiced this call. See Kochenov, D, ‘The Essence of European Citizenship Emerging from the Last Ten Years of Academic Debate: Beyond the Cherry Blossoms and the Moon?’ (2013) 62 ICLQ 97, 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Allott, P, ‘The European Community is Not the True European Community’ (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Comité intergouvernemental créé par la conférence de Messine, Rapport des Chefs de Délégation aux Ministres des Affaires Etrangères (Mae 120 f/56 (corrigé), Brussels, 21 April 1956) (Spaak Report).

²² Nic Shuibhne (n 6).

²³ Eg, Somek (n 2).

²⁴ Kochenov (n 19); Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship’ (2005) 68 MLR 233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (in general on EU citizenship and its potential).

²⁵ Kochenov, D and Plender, R, ‘EU Citizenship: From an Incipient Form to an Incipient Substance?’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 369 Google Scholar.

²⁶ Lenaerts, K, ‘“ Civis Europaeus Sum”: From the Cross-border Link to the Status of Citizen of the Union’ (2011) 3 Electronic Journal of Free Movement of Workers in the European Union 6, especially 18Google Scholar; Kochenov, D, ‘A Real European Citizenship: A New Jurisdiction Test—A Novel Chapter in the Development of the Union in Europe’ (2011) 18 Columbia Journal of European Law 56 Google Scholar.

²⁷ Kochenov and Plender (n 25).

²⁸ See Jacobs, F (ed), European Law and the Individual (Amsterdam, North Holland, 1976) for an early now-classical analysisGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Especially relevant in this context is the Ad Hoc Assembly Instructed to Work Out a Draft Treaty Setting Up a European Political Community, Draft Treaty Embodying the Statute of the European Community (Secretariat of the Constitutional Committee 1952–53) and the Draft Treaty Establishing the European Union [1984] OJ C77/33.

³⁰ See, eg, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), art 267. For analysis, see also Broberg, M and Fenger, N, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2010)Google Scholar.

³¹ The Schuman Declaration (9 May 1950).

³² Weiler, JHH, ‘The Schuman Declaration as a Manifesto of Political Messianism’, in Dickson, J and Eleftheriadis, P (eds), Philosophical Foundations of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar.

³³ Weiler, JHH, The Constitution for Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1999) 18 Google Scholar. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an important innovation, which demonstrates how far the Member States are bound: the procedure of withdrawal from the Union. EU law now also regulates leaving the Union, ie, the state of exception itself: Treaty on European Union (TEU), art 50. For an analysis, see, eg, Łazowski, A, ‘Withdrawal from the European Union and Alternatives to Membership’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 523 Google Scholar.

³⁴ Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1 (special English edition).

³⁵ Allott (n 20). See also Basheska, E, ‘The Principle of Good Neighbourly Relations in Europe’ (PhD thesis, University of Groningen 2014)Google Scholar for a detailed analysis of this new context under the auspices of EU law.

³⁶ D Kochenov and F Amtenbrink, ‘The Active Paradigm of the Study of the EU’s Place in the World: An Introduction’ in Kochenov and Amtenbrink (n 16), 1. It seems that it would be too far-fetched to state that the EU’s special position in the world as the first test case of what Judge Pescatore branded as ‘droit de l’intégration’ is radically undermined by the crisis of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

³⁷ de Witte, F, ‘The Role of Transnational Solidarity in Mediating Conflicts of Justice in Europe’ (2012) 18 European Law Journal 694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov, D, ‘On Options of Citizens and Moral Choices of States’ (2009) 33 Fordham International Law Journal 156 Google Scholar.

³⁸ The division of all citizens into marktbürgers and citoyens is half-hearted, if viewed in this vein, even though it is overwhelmingly accepted in EU legal scholarship. See, eg, Kochenov, D, ‘ Ius Tractum of Many Faces: European Citizenship and a Difficult Relationship between Status and Rights’ (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 169, 194–95Google Scholar and the literature cited therein for an overview.

³⁹ See the Court’s reasoning in Van Gend en Loos (n 34) for the connections between the citizen and the establishment of the fundamental essence of EU law through the principle of direct effect.

⁴⁰ Weiler, JHH, ‘The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism’ (1981) 1 Yearbook of European Law 267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Kumm, M, ‘The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification’ (2010) 4(2) Law and Ethics of Human Rights 1938 (courts as an essential element of democracy)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Davies, G, ‘Humiliation of the State as a Constitutional Tactic’ in Amtenbrink, F and van den Bergh, P (eds), The Constitutional Integrity of the European Union (The Hague, TMC Asser Press 2010), 147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Kymlicka, W, ‘Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice’ in Benhabib, S Another Cosmopolitanism (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2006) 134 Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Perju, V, ‘Proportionality and Freedom: An Essay on Method in Constitutional Law’ (2012) 1 Global Constitutionalism 334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Van Gend en Loos (n 34).

⁴⁶ Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] 2 CMLR 46.

⁴⁷ Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193 [31]. See also Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091 [82]; Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] 2 CMLR 46 [41].

⁴⁸ Crucially, even the exact moment of the introduction of the terminology of citizenship into the treaties is irrelevant in this context. European citizenship, as an empowering legal status of the Member States’ nationals, clearly pre-dates the Treaty of Maastricht, as Antje Wiener has shown. See Wiener, Antje, ‘Assessing the Constructive Potential of Union Citizenship: A Socio-Historical Perspective’ (1997) 1 European Integration Online Papers 17 Google Scholar; Wiener, Antje, ‘European’ Citizenship Practice: Building Institutions of a Non-State (Boulder, Westview 1998)Google Scholar. See also R Plender, ‘An Incipient Form of European Citizenship’ in Jacobs (n 28). See also Kochenov and Plender (n 25) for a contemporary analysis of the (lack of) importance of the Maastricht terminological innovation for the EU citizenship practice until very recent developments.

⁴⁹ Recital 10 of the Preamble to the Treaty of Lisbon, which reads as follows: ‘RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries.’

⁵⁰ This is notwithstanding the fact that the origins of the democracy and human rights protection thinking at the EU level within the context of the internal market are necessarily connected with the activity of corporations claiming rights and the power games between the courts at different levels. For a great story, see G Davies, ‘Constitutional Disagreement in Europe and the Search for Legal Pluralism’ (2010) Prague Eric Stein Working Papers 1/2010.

⁵¹ But see G Davies’ contribution in de Búrca, Kochenov and Williams (n 9).

⁵² Needless to say, such protection is not absolute, but it is likely to improve in the future. See, eg, von Bogdandy, A et al, ‘Reverse Solange: Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights against EU Member States’ (2012) 49 CML Rev 489 Google Scholar. For criticism and analysis, see the special debate which was dedicated to this proposal by the Verfassungsblog in the spring of 2012.

⁵³ de Búrca (n 16).

⁵⁴ There is no reason to take integration, which necessarily means taking integration in a particular specific form, for granted. The need for justification is always there. Neyer, J, The Justification of Europe: A Political Theory of Supranational Integration (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgan (n 12); Sissenich (n 12).

⁵⁵ Spaak Report (n 21).

⁵⁶ Haas, E, The Uniting of Europe (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press 2004)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ de Witte, B, ‘The Crumbling Public/Private Divide: Horizontality in European Anti Discrimination Law’ (2009) 13 Citizenship Studies 515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; More, G, ‘The Principle of Equal Treatment: From Market Unifier to Fundamental Right?’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999) 517 Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351; Kokott, J and Sobotta, C, ‘The Kadi Case: Constitutional Core Values and International Law—Finding the Balance?’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern [2010] ECR I-1449. For a critical analysis, see, eg, Cambien, N, ‘Case C-125/08, Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern ’ (2011) 17 Columbia Journal European Law 375, 386–91Google Scholar; see also Kochenov, D, ‘Annotation of Case C-135/08 Rottmann ’ (2010) 47 CML Rev 1831 Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ T Marguery, ‘La citoyénneté européenne joue-t-elle un role dans l’espace penal de liberté, de sécurité et de justice?’ (2010) Cahiers de droit européen 387.

⁶¹ Komárek, J, ‘European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant’ (2007) 44 CML Rev 9 Google Scholar.

⁶² Exceptions are very rare. See, eg, Kostakopoulou (n 24) for a fundamental work arguing for the deployment of EU citizenship to the full.

⁶³ Aron, R, Le Grand Débat: Initiation à la Stratégie Atomique (Paris, Calmann-Levy 1963)Google Scholar (theorising the mutually assured destruction doctrine).

⁶⁴ See Andrew Williams’ remarkable analysis of the actual role of the value of peace in the context of EU integration, which is nil—to which Srebrenica and countless other episodes testify: Williams (n 1) 22–64.

⁶⁵ Case C-212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government [2008] ECR I-1683, Opinion of AG Sharpston [143]–[144].

⁶⁶ Kochenov (n 8) 41–45.

⁶⁷ See, eg, Kochenov (n 38) (on EU citizenship and ‘activated’ EU citizenship).

⁶⁸ See Tryfonidou, A, Reverse Discrimination in EC Law (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International 2009)Google Scholar for a magisterial analysis of reverse discrimination.

⁶⁹ Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘(Some of) The Kids are Alright: Comment on McCarthy and Dereci ’ (2012) 49 CML Rev 349 Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See, eg, Joined Cases 80 and 159/85 Nederlandse Bakkerij Stichting v EDAH BV [1986] ECR 3359, Opinion of AG Mischo: ‘Reverse discrimination is clearly impossible in the long run with a true common market’ (at 3375) (concerning goods); Case C-168/91 Konstantinidis [1993] ECR I-1191, Opinion of AG Jacobs [46] (concerning the free movement of people). The learned AG stated that it is ‘increasingly difficult to see why Community law should accept any type of difference in treatment which is based purely on nationality, except in so far as the essential characteristics of nationality are at stake’. Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government (n 65) Opinion of AG Sharpston [117]–[118].

⁷¹ On EU federalism see, eg, Lenaerts, K and Gutman, K, ‘“Federal Common Law” in the European Union’ (2006) 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Schütze, R, ‘On “Federal” Ground: The European Union as an (Inter)National Phenomenon’ (2009) 46 CML Rev 1069 Google Scholar; Piris, J-C, ‘L’Union Européenne: vers une nouvelle forme de fédéralisme?’ (2005) 41 Revue trimestrielle de droit european 243 Google Scholar.

⁷² Hanf, D, ‘“Reverse Discrimination” in EU Law: Constitutional Aberration, Constitutional Necessity, or Judicial Choice?’ (2011) 18 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geelhoed, LA, ‘De Vrijheid van Personenverkeer en de Interne Situatie: Maatschappelijke Dynamiek en Juridische Rafels’ in Manunza, E and Senden, L (eds), De EU: De interstatelijkheid voorbij? (Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers 2006) 31 and 49Google Scholar; cfSlynn, G, Introducing a European Legal Order (London, Stevens & Sons 1992) 99 Google Scholar.

⁷³ For an analysis, see Kochenov and Plender (n 25).

⁷⁴ For a great overview, see von Bogdandy, A and Bast, J, ‘The European Union’s Vertical Order of Competences’ (2002) 39 CML Rev 227 Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Joined Cases C-64 and C-65/96 Uecker and Jacquet [1997] ECR I-3171 [23]; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I-11613 [26].

⁷⁶ As has been shown in detail elsewhere, the rationale behind this statement is pre-Maastricht in nature: it treats EU citizenship as an auxiliary instrument of the internal market and ignores all the crucial innovations of the Treaty on European Union signed in Maastricht: Kochenov and Plender (n 25) 376.

⁷⁷ Part II TFEU (also art 9 TEU).

⁷⁸ ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union … shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed’: art 19(1) TEU.

⁷⁹ Kochenov and Plender (n 25) 376–77.

⁸⁰ See, eg, A Williams, ‘The EU, Interim Global Justice and the International Legal Order’ in Kochenov and Amtenbrink (n 16), 38, demonstrating the legitimacy of the expectations of turning the EU into an actor of global redistributive justice.

⁸¹ Williams (n 1). See also de Búrca, Kochenov and Williams (n 9) for a global overview of this important problem as well as some possible solutions.

⁸² Williams (n 1) 22–64.

⁸³ Somek (n 2).

⁸⁴ Weiler, JHH, ‘Europa: “Nous coalisons des Etats noun n’unissons pas des hommes”’ in Cartabia, M and Simoncini, A (eds), La Sostenibilità della democrazia nel XXI secolo (Bologna, Il Mulino 2009) 51 Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Weiler, JHH, ‘Though Shalt Not Oppress a Stranger’ (1992) 3 European Journal of International Law 65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balibar, É, Nous, citoyens d’Europe (Paris, Découverte 2001)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ However artificially her economic nature is discovered. See also Kochenov (n 8) 41–45 for criticism of such artificiality.

⁸⁷ Weiler (n 15); Weiler, JHH, ‘In the Face of the Crisis—Input Legitimacy, Output Legitimacy and the Political Messianism of European Integration’ (2012) 34 Journal of European Integration 825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁸ Weiler (n 15).

⁸⁹ Bellah, RN and Hammond, PE, Varieties of Civil Religion (San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Union Federation et al v Vikingline ABP et al [2007] ECR I-10779; Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ptd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet et al [2007] ECR I-11767.

⁹¹ For critical analyses, see eg, Belavusau, U, ‘The Case of Laval in the Context of the Post-Enlargement EC Law Development’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 1279 Google Scholar; Kukovec (n 5).

⁹² Weiler (n 3). It should be kept in mind that in the European context, the appeals to peace as a legitimising factor are particularly ironic, should one take the history of bi-polar world and strong American presence on the continent fully into account. The irony is explained well by NATO’s General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen: ‘Soft power alone is no power at all’: A Rettman, ‘NATO Chief: EU Soft Power is “No Power at All”’ EU Observer (6 May 2013). Available at: http://euobserver.com/defence/120046.

⁹³ Weiler (n 85). This logic explains why the Charter of Fundamental Rights was not met with any particular enthusiasm and will most likely remain stillborn from the point of view of legitimising the Union: van den Brink, M, ‘EU Citizenship and EU Fundamental Rights’ (2012) 39 Legal Issues of European Economic Integration 273 Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Weiler (n 3) 231.

⁹⁵ Nic Shuibhne (n 6) 1608.

⁹⁶ Neyer, The Justification of Europe (n 10); Neyer, ‘Justice, Not Democracy: Legitimacy in the European Union’ (n 10).

⁹⁷ This is a trade-off inherent in the logic of proportionality: M Cohen-Eliya and I Porat, ‘Proportionality and the Culture of Justification’ (2011) American Journal of Comparative Law 463. See also Tsakyrakis, S, ‘Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?’ (2009) 7 International Journal of Constitutional Law 468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for criticism.

⁹⁸ Weiler (n 3) 231.

⁹⁹ See Wollenschläger, F, ‘A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration’ (2011) 17 European Law Journal 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a meticulous analysis.

¹⁰⁰ Craig, P, ‘The ECJ and Ultra Vires Action: A Conceptual Analysis’ (2011) 48 CML Rev 395 Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Cowan, Micheletti, Adoui and Cornouaille can all be presented as—and essentially are—cases about EU citizenship. Also the first takes on supra-national citizenship were necessarily market-driven: HP Ipsen and G Nicolaysen, ‘Haager Konferenz für Europarecht und Bericht über die aktuelle Entwicklung des Gemeinschaftsrechts’ [1965] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 18.

¹⁰² Kochenov and Plender (n 25) 373–74.

¹⁰³ See, eg, Wiener, ‘European’ Citizenship Practice (n 48); O’Leary, S, The Evolving Concept Of Community Citizenship (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1996)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Rottmann (n 59), Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro [23]. See also Kochenov, D, ‘Member State Nationalities and the Internal Market: Illusions and Reality’ in Shuibhne, N Nic and Gormley, LW (eds), From Single Market to Economic Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012), 241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the legal analysis of the interaction between the two autonomous legal concepts—that of Member State nationality and that of EU citizenship.

¹⁰⁵ As it is derived from the nationalities of the Member States: Kochenov (n 38).

¹⁰⁶ See, eg, Nic Shuibhne (n 6).

¹⁰⁷ Wollenschläger (n 99). See also Kochenov (n 19) for an attempt to reconcile the two visions by showing that they are not in fundamental conflict.

¹⁰⁸ There is a reference to ‘duties’ too; for an analysis, see Kochenov, D, ‘European Citizenship without Duties’ (2014) 10 European Law Journal (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Article 3(2) TEU.

¹¹⁰ Ibid, art 3(3).

¹¹¹ Ibid, art 5(1).

¹¹² Kochenov and Plender (n 25).

¹¹³ Craig (n 101).

¹¹⁴ Dora Kostakopoulou played an important role here: Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Citizenship Goes Public: The Institutional Design of Anational Citizenship’ (2009) 17 Journal of Political Philosophy 275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D, ‘European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future’ (2007) 13 European Law Journal 623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kostakopoulou (n 24); Kostakopoulou, D, Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union: Between Past and Future (Manchester, Manchester University Press 2001)Google Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D, ‘The European Citizenship Menu: Modes and Options’ (2000) 7 Journal of European Public Policy 477 Google Scholar; Kostakopoulou, D, ‘Nested “Old” and “New” Citizenships in the European Union: Bringing out the Complexity’ (1999) 5 Columbia Journal of European Law 389 Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ See, eg, Konstantinidis (n 70) Opinion of AG Jacobs [46]; Case C-214/94, Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [1996] ECR I-2253, Opinion of AG Léger [63]; Joined Cases C-65 and 111/95 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mann Singh Shingara and ex p Abbas Radiom [1997] ECR I-3343, Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer [34].

¹¹⁶ See Kochenov (n 38) 172 for a list of sceptical opinions by scholars, including JHH Weiler, PJG Kapteyn, P VerLoren van Themaat, HU Jessurun d’Oliveira and others.

¹¹⁷ Uecker and Jacquet (n 75) [23]; Garcia Avello (n 75) [26].

¹¹⁸ Different approaches to the notion can be found in the literature. Dora Kostakopoulou listed the following: ‘Market citizenship’, ‘Civic republican European citizenship’, ‘Deliberative European citizenship’, ‘Corrective European citizenship’ and ‘Constructive European citizenship’: Kostakopoulou (n 24) 238–43. See, for notable alternative analyses eg, Bosniak, L, ‘Citizenship Denationalised’ (2000) 7 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 477 Google Scholar; Rubinstein, K and Adler, D, ‘International Citizenship: The Future of Nationality in a Globalised World’ (2000) 7 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 519, 522Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ See Kochenov (n 19) on the many current directions of EU citizenship law.

¹²⁰ Shaw, J, ‘Constitutional Settlements and the Citizen after the Treaty of Amsterdam’ in Neunreither, K and Wiener, A (eds), European Integration after Amsterdam (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000)Google Scholar, arguing for a constructive approach.

¹²¹ Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691.

¹²² Garcia Avello (n 75).

¹²³ Nic Shuibhne (n 6).

¹²⁴ KL Karst, ‘Equal Protection of the Laws’ (1986) Nov/Dec Society 24; Bauböck, R and Guiraudon, V, ‘Introduction: Realignments of Citizenship: Reassessing Rights in the Age of Plural Memberships and Multi-Level Governance’ (2009) 13 Citizenship Studies 439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁵ Rottman (n 59); [2010] 3 CMLR 2; Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) [2011] 2 CMLR 46; Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci v Bundesministerium für Inneres [2012] 1 CMLR 45. See also Kochenov (n 26).

¹²⁶ Thym, D, ‘Towards “Real” Citizenship? The Judicial Construction of Union Citizenship and its Limits’, in Adams, M et al (eds), Judging Europe’s Judges (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2013)Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ For an analysis see, eg, Kochenov (n 104).

¹²⁸ Kostakopoulou (n 24).

¹²⁹ I Pernice, ‘The EU—A Citizens’ Joint Venture: Multilevel Constitutionalism and Open Democracy in Europe’ (2012) Walter Hallstein-Institut Working Paper.

¹³⁰ Weiler (n 33) 18.

¹³¹ Pernice (n 129). Pernice’s starting point is the following: ‘I understand the people not as an abstract entity “Volk” or nation, but as the individuals having decided to unite and constitute themselves as the subjects of legitimacy by organizing themselves politically within what we call “state”, the citizenship of which they earn … My proposal is to consider the constitution of Europe in the same way.’

¹³² Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-524/06 Heinz Huber v Germany [2008] ECR I-9705 [19] (emphasis added).

¹³³ Weiler (n 84) 82. The problematic aspect of this case law is precisely in that it fails to fulfil the conceptual transition from a freedom of movement based on the market to a freedom based on citizenship.

¹³⁴ Nic Shuibhne (n 6).

¹³⁵ This openness of the Court to the non-market elements in the consideration of the substance of EU citizenship cases has been noticed by scholars. See, eg, Wollenschläger (n 100).

¹³⁶ Kochenov and Plender (n 25).

¹³⁷ Kochenov, D, ‘Equality across the Legal Orders; Or Voiding EU Citizenship of Content’ in Guild, E, Rotaeche, C Gortázar and Kostakopoulou, D (eds), The Reconceptualisation of European Citizenship (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), 301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁸ Cohen, GA, ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’ (1989) 99 Ethics 906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waldron, J, ‘The Substance of Equality’ (1983) 89 Michigan Law Review 1350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁹ Kochenov (n 137).

¹⁴⁰ Chalmers, D, Davies, G and Monti, G, European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2010) 463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴¹ See, eg, Italian Corte Costitutzionale, sentenza 16–30 dicembre 1997, No 443, para 6: ‘nel giudizio di eguaglianza affidato a questa Corte non possono essere ignorati gli effetti discriminatori che l’applicazione del diritto comunitario è suscettibile di provocare’.

¹⁴² Belgian Cour Constitutionnelle, Judgment 11/2009 of 21 January 2009. See also Van Elsuwege, P and Adam, S, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Dialogue for the Prevention of Reverse Discrimination’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 327, 335–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴³ The former is a pure tautology without the latter. See, eg, Berlin, I, ‘Equality’ (1955–56) 56 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 301 Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ You should not necessarily move to be ‘cross-border’: see, eg, Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V [2005] ECR I-6421 [22].

¹⁴⁵ For an overview, see Lenaerts (n 26) 18.

¹⁴⁶ Zhu v Chen (C-200/02 [2004] ECR I-9925) is a good example. An infinite number of others can be given by any graduate student reading EU law at a respectable University.

¹⁴⁷ Tryfonidou, A, ‘In Search of the Aim of the EC Free Movement of Persons Provisions’ (2009) 46 CML Rev 1591, 1592–95Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ Lenaerts (n 26); Kochenov (n 26).

¹⁴⁹ Rottmann (n 59) [42].

¹⁵⁰ See, eg, Ruiz Zambrano (n 126) [42]; McCarthy (n 4) [53].

¹⁵¹ As happened in McCarthy (n 4), for instance.

¹⁵² Kochenov, D, ‘The Right to Have What Rights?’ (2013) 19 European Law Journal 502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵³ The two jurisdiction tests are used side by side at the moment: McCarthy (n 4); Dereci (n 125).

¹⁵⁴ Kochenov and Plender (n 25); Kochenov (n 26).

¹⁵⁵ Kochenov (n 152).

¹⁵⁶ Ibid; Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs’ (2011) 36 European Law Review 161 Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Kuhn, TS, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, University of Chicago Press 1962)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ See Philip Allott’s work, using international law and relations as a case study for the re-statement of this simple truth: Allott, P, Eunomia (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1990)Google Scholar; Allott (n 11).

¹⁵⁹ It took us, lawyers, many generations to come to this understanding dismissing the ‘scientific’ fantasy of the law. For a great plea to take reality into account in EU law see R Schütze (n 11).

¹⁶⁰ See, eg, Wintermute, R and Andenæs, M (eds), Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2001)Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ See, eg, Davies, B, Resisting the European Court of Justice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶² See, eg, Kennedy, D, ‘Three Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850–2000’ in Trubek, DM and Santos, A (eds), The New Law and Economic Development (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2006) 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶³ See, eg, Perju (n 44).

¹⁶⁴ Part III.

¹⁶⁵ Part II.

¹⁶⁶ Part I V.

¹⁶⁷ Part VI.

¹⁶⁸ Kochenov and Plender (n 25).

¹⁶⁹ Kochenov (n 152).

¹⁷⁰ Palombella, G, ‘Whose Europe? After the Constitution: A Goal-Based Citizenship’ (2005) 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, referring to Sen’s work in the context of EU citizenship.

¹⁷¹ Kumm (n 41).

¹⁷² Davies (n 42).

¹⁷³ See the Opinion of AG Sharpston in Ruiz Zambrano (n 125), criticising many aspects of this logic.