How far does EU citizenship go in 2026? Let the CJEU explain

By Anastasiia Sheremok

What is the best way to celebrate Europe Day, if not by reflecting on the opportunities and rights the EU has given its citizens? The European Union is currently home to almost 450 million people. In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht introduced the concept of European citizenship, which is automatically granted to anyone who holds the nationality of an EU country, in addition to that of the Member State. 34 years later, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) continues to expand on the specific rights that EU citizens carry.

How does the Court expand on EU citizenship if nationality law is the competence of the Member States?

Nationality remains within Member State competence, but its exercise is constrained by EU law when EU citizenship rights are affected. Recent case law shows how the Court developed the balance between the autonomy of EU countries and the protection of rights derived from EU citizenship.

In 2010, the Court held in Rottman that the power of the Member States to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality is amenable to judicial review in so far as it affects the rights conferred by the Union on citizens of the Union (para. 39). Here is why it is considered a groundbreaking judgement:

The Court took a large step forward by introducing a form of ‘Europeanisation’ of nationality law. It said that when the consequences of the decision of the Member State on nationality affect the rights attached to EU citizenship, Member States must exercise their competence subject to EU law constraints. Member States still decide who gets or loses their nationality. However, when those decisions affect a person’s EU citizenship, they must respect EU law. In this case, a Member State’s decision to withdraw a nationality falls within EU law because it entails the loss of EU citizenship, even though nationality is, in principle, governed by national law (para. 42). 

At the same time, the national court must assess whether the withdrawal decision is proportionate to the consequences it entails for the situation of the person concerned (para. 55). This means that the Court can check whether the decision is fair and proportionate, but does not decide who should be granted citizenship. Since Rottman, the proportionality test has become the main mechanism through which EU law constrains national decisions affecting citizenship.

Later, in the Tjebbes and Others case of 2019, the Court further developed the proportionality test established in Rottman. It added an important requirement: even where nationality is lost automatically, individuals must have the possibility of an individual examination of the consequences of that loss (para. 41). National authorities and courts must be able to assess proportionality in light of EU law, including fundamental rights such as family life and the best interests of the child (para. 45). If, after an individual assessment, the loss of nationality is found to be disproportionate under EU law, the person must have the possibility to recover their nationality (para. 42). 

The limits of EU citizenship

While Rottman and Tjebbes expand the reach of EU law, several cases show us the limits of EU citizenship.

For example, Delvigne in 2015 assessed whether someone can lose their right to vote in European Parliament elections when convicted of a serious offence. Mr Delvigne, a French citizen, had been sentenced to prison for murder. Under French law at the time, this also meant losing his right to vote. So he challenged this decision, arguing that it violated his rights as an EU citizen. The Court first had to decide whether this situation was even covered by EU law – and it said yes. While Member States determine electoral rules, they must do so in compliance with EU law, particularly the Charter, when organising elections to the European Parliament, such as ensuring democratic and fair elections. Delvigne made explicit the link between EU citizenship and the democratic governance of the EU. It showed that the political dimension of EU citizenship is not limited to provisions of treaties from which it stems but also involves other provisions of EU law (p. 13).

Another clear illustration of the limits of EU citizenship is Brexit, followed by a collective loss of EU citizenship rights. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the European Parliament v Préfet du Gers in 2022 made clear that EU citizenship is not an autonomous status and cannot exist independently of Member State nationality. The Court stated that the Treaties establish ‘an inseparable and exclusive link’ between possession of the nationality of a Member State and the status of EU citizen (para. 48). Consequently, once the United Kingdom withdrew from the EU, its nationals automatically lost EU citizenship and the rights associated with it, even if a person currently resides in an EU Member State (para. 52). 

Lastly, the Commission v Malta judgment from last year illustrated that the acquisition of EU citizenship cannot result from a commercial transaction. The case reviewed Malta’s investor citizenship scheme, which allowed foreign nationals to obtain citizenship in exchange for significant investments, a philanthropic donation, and 12-36 months of residency.

The Court concluded that because such a scheme amounts to the commercialisation of the nationality of a Member State and, by extension, of EU citizenship, Malta has infringed EU law. Such ‘commercialisation’ of citizenship does not make it possible to establish the necessary bond of solidarity and good faith between a Member State and its citizens or to ensure mutual trust between the Member States and thus constitutes a breach of the principle of sincere cooperation, which governed the establishment of Union citizenship in the Treaties.

Conclusion

Although EU citizenship seems like a simple concept, it has implications and rights attached to it. Referencing the judge of the CJEU, Eugene Regan, the Court does not so much represent an evolution but a clarification by the Court of how those principles and rules are to be interpreted to ensure that citizens everywhere, whatever Member State they come from, are treated equally and in the same manner in other Member States. It might not always be linear: sometimes, as after Brexit, the development was followed by backward steps. Nevertheless, it remains clear that the Court, in its judgments, has made a big contribution to developing EU citizenship.