Highlights

image1

European Citizenship at the Crossroads


This book examines the changing role played by the European Union and international standards on loss and acquisition of nationality. It provides a comparative analysis of EU Member States regulations, administrative practices, court rulings and statistical data on questions related to loss of nationality and European citizenship. It assesses the multifaceted repercussions of the supranational venues of judicial and legal accountability over states autonomy and competences at times of deciding who is and who is not a citizen. The following questions are examined: to what the extent do EU Member States still hold the exclusive competence over domestic decisions in nationality matters? How do international and European legal principles and standards, as well as case-law by European courts progressively affect their margin of manoeuvre at times of deciding who is and who is not a ‘citizen’? What are the repercussions of their obligations in safeguarding citizenship of the Union? List of contents Preface 
   Gerard-René de Groot and Sergio Carrera Nuñez
About the Authors 
Abbreviations 
List of Tables and Figures 
Foreword 

   Zeta Georgiadou PART I: LOSS AND QUASI-LOSS OF NATIONALITY IN THE EU
Chapter 1 
Introduction: European Citizenship at a Crossroads
   Sergio Carrera Nuñez and Gerard-René de Groot
Chapter 2 
Survey on Rules on Loss of Nationality in International
Treaties and Case Law
   Gerard-René de Groot
Chapter 3 
A Comparative Analysis of Regulations on Involuntary
Loss of Nationality in the European Union
   Gerard-René de Groot and Maarten Peter Vink
Chapter 4
Reflections on Quasi-Loss of Nationality from
Comparative, International and European Perspectives
   Gerard-René de Groot and Patrick Wautelet
Chapter 5 
Mapping Statistics on Loss of Nationality in the EU:
A New Online Database
   Maarten Peter Vink and Ngo Chun Luk PART II: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND DEVELOPMENTS
Chapter 6
Loss of Nationality in the Nordic Countries 185
   Eva Ersbøll
Chapter 7 
Deprivation of Citizenship:
The Latvian Example and EU Perspective
   Kristine Kruma
Chapter 8 
Is it Possible to Lose the Hungarian Nationality?
   Judit Tóth
Chapter 9 
Iberian Nationality Legislation and Sephardic Jews:
‘With due regard to European law’?
   Hans Ulrich Jessurun d’Oliveira
Chapter 10 
Attribution of Spanish Nationality to Children Born in Spain with the
Purpose of Avoiding Situations of Statelessness at Birth.
   Aurelia Álvarez Rodríguez and Guayasén
   Marrero González
Chapter 11 
How Much Does EU Citizenship Cost? The Maltese Citizenship-for-Sale
Affair: A Breakthrough for Sincere Cooperation in Citizenship of the Union?
   Sergio Carrera Nuñez PART III
ROTTMANN IN THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:
A collection of judgements, pending cases and caselaw notes 1. AUSTRIA
Gerard-René de Groot
1.1. CASE 1: An Austrian husband of Macedonian origin 
1.1.1. Text of the judgement 
1.1.2. Case Note 
1.2. CASE 2: An Austrian wife of Nigerian origin 
1.2.1. Text of the judgement 
1.2.2. Case Note 
1.3. CASE 3: An Austrian husband of Turkish origin 
1.3.1. Text of the judgement 
1.3.2. Case Note  2. BELGIUM
   Patrick Wautelet
2.1. CASE 4: Two Belgian children born in China 
2.1.1. Text of the judgement 
2.1.2. Case Note  3. CYPRUS
   Nicoletta Charalambidou
3.1. CASE 5 
3.1.1. Text of the judgement 
3.1.2. Case Note  4. DENMARK
   Eva Ersbøll
4.1. PENDING CASE 
4.1.1. Case description  5. GERMANY
   Gerard-René de Groot
5.1. CASE 6: The fate of Janko Rottmann 
5.1.1. Text of the judgement 
5.1.2. Case Note 
5.2. CASE 7: A German with Turkish roots 
5.2.1. Text of the judgement 
5.2.2. Case Note  6. LATVIA
   Kristine Kruma
6.1. CASE 8: A Latvian with a Russian background 
6.1.1. Text of the judgement: Court of First Instance 
6.1.2. Text of the judgement: Latvian Supreme Court 
6.1.3. Case Note  7. MALTA
   Daniela DeBono
7.1. CASE 9 
7.1.1. Text of the judgements: First Hall of the Constitutional Court 
7.1.2. Text of the judgements: Court of Appeals of the Constitutional Court 
7.1.3. Case Note  8. THE NETHERLANDS
   Ngo Chun Luk
8.1. Combined Case Note 
8.2. CASE 10: Parental error 
8.3. CASE 11: Syrian, not Iraqi 
8.4. CASE 12: Unintentional fraud 
8.5. CASE 13: Fictitious parentage 
8.6. CASE 14: Bigamous Egyptian 
8.7. CASE 15: Hidden criminal antecedents 
8.8. CASE 16: Identity fraud in Limburg 
8.9. Final Remarks 
8.10. Text of Judgments  9. THE NETHERLANDS
   Gerard-René de Groot
9.1. PENDING CASE 2: Dutch twins? 
9.1.1. Case description  10. SPAIN
   Guayasén Marrero González
10.1. CASE 17: Temporary residence permit on the grounds of exceptional circumstances (social         integration)
10.1.1. Text of the judgement 
10.1.2. Case Note  11. UNITED KINGDOM
11.1. PENDING CASE 3: A British Vietnamese involved in terrorism? 
11.1.1. Appeal: Court of Appeal of England and Wales 
11.1.2. Final appeal: Supreme Court – case description  12. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
   Gerard-René de Groot
12.1. PENDING CASE 4: A Maltese husband of Egyptian origin 
12.1.1. Case description 
12.1.2. Comments 

ANNEX 1.
Guidelines Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship (ILEC Guidelines 2015) 
Gerard-René de Groot, Maarten Peter Vink and Patrick Wautelet REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 

Forthcoming Publications

image1

Twee eeuwen dienstplicht, discipline, dienstweigering en desertie
S. Meuwese

Deze studie waarop Stan Meuwese in maart 2017 in Tilburg promoveerde, is opmerkelijk genoeg de eerste en enige wetenschappelijke juridische studie over de dienstplicht. De ontwikkeling van de wetgeving en de rechtspraak vanaf de invoering van de dienstplicht in Nederland in februari 1811 door Napoleon tot aan de opkomst van de laatste dienstplichtigen in januari 1996 komt aan de orde. Tien chronologische hoofdstukken bevatten ieder vier paragrafen: de dienstplicht (hoe komt men in de krijgsmacht terecht), de discipline (hoe houdt men met behulp van het militair straf- en tuchtrecht de dienstplichtigen vast in de kazernes), de dienstweigering (hoe bleef men uit het leger) en desertie (hoe ontvluchtte men aan de krijgsmacht). De juridische legitimatie van de dienstplicht heeft in de loop van twee eeuwen steeds ontbroken. Arm of rijk, jongen of meisje, uit een groot gezin of uit een klein gezin, leek of priester: de rechtsgeschiedenis van de dienstplicht toont geen beeld van gelijke behandeling. De dienstplicht is in 1996 niet afgeschaft, maar opgeschort. Toch zal de formele dienstplicht ook op meisjes van toepassing verklaard worden. De rechtsgeschiedenis van de dienstplicht is ook het verhaal van mensen: Dirk Donker Curtius die in 1813 werd opgeroepen voor de Garde d’Honneur van Napoleon, J.K. van der Veer, die in Middelburg in 1896 de schutterijplicht weigerde gebaseerd op antimilitaristische motieven in de lijn van Tolstoi, Herman Groenendaal die in 1921 als dienstweigeraar in hongerstaking ging, sergeant Meijer die op 12 mei 1940 werd geëxecuteerd wegens verlaten van zijn post op de Grebbeberg, Poncke Princen, die in Indië in 1948 kant van de nationalisten koos, Rinus Wehrmann die in 1971 weigerde zijn lange haren te laten knippen, Hans Dona en Wim Schul die in 1971 op grond van een artikel in een VVDM-blad drie maanden tuchtklasse in Nieuwersluis kregen, Kees Vellekoop die in 1973 op grond van politieke bezwaren tegen de krijgsmacht in gevangenis kwam. De toekomst van de dienstplicht ligt achter ons: het is mooi geweest met de dienstplicht. prof. mr. drs. Ben Vermeulen, lid van de Raad van State en hoogleraar staatsrecht: Dit is ongetwijfeld het best geschreven proefschrift dat ik ooit heb mogen begeleiden. Het leest als een trein, is buitengewoon soepel geschreven, bevat veel woordspelingen en -rijmen, talloze petites histoires en is vaak buitengewoon humoristisch.  

image1

The many Faces of Crime for Profit and Ways of Tackling it
Petrus C. van Duyne,Jackie Harvey,Georgios A. Antonopoulos, Klaus von Lampe (eds.)

The national diversity of Europe is reflected in the diversity of its criminal landscape and history. From the north of Scotland to Ukraine one finds different focal points and patterns of crimes and criminal entrepreneurs. This does not necessarily lead to a corresponding reaction of the authorities. Some responses are the result of a gradually developed form of cross-border cooperation, as is the case between Poland and Germany, other authorities appear carried away with emotional decision making and an inflexible political correctness as is observed in the field of the sex service industry. In another country, in the adjacent field of child trafficking, we find the converse: no response as victims are not labelled as such. And no victim label, no criminal law policy.   Where the interactions between the upper- and underworld come into sight, this volume presents the reader with a select picture gallery of criminal faces: from corrupt football to remarkable criminal finances in Ukraine, to fraud and criminal abuse in the informal or quack health sector. Naturally, each face has its own pretences in order to hide its criminal background, be it large scale cannabis growing in the Netherlands or organised cybercrime from Romania to all countries in Europe.   Indeed, the criminal portrait series in this Cross-border Crime Volume shows that criminal Europe does not lead to a boring uniformity, despite the fear of globalism.   This sixteenth volume of the Cross-border Crime Colloquium contains the seventeen peer-reviewed contributions of 26 authors presented in 2016 at the Cross-border Crime Colloquium held at Northumbria University, Newcastle. The authors represent upcoming experts and established researchers in the field of (organised) crime for profit and related policies. The contributions are based on empirical research and independent analysis and provide new data and insights on which to build new theories and future research.  

image1

Humanitarian Intervention as an Exception to the Prohibition on the Use of Force
Petra Zvržina

The core objective of the United Nations is to strive towards peace and security in international community. Recent flows of refugees to Europe have led to wonder how the international community could help both people facing abuses of their fundamental rights, and also European countries to which they are immigrating. However, since 1945, the use of force has been prohibited with no mention of interventions for humanitarian purposes. The question remains, when unauthorised humanitarian intervention as a last resort measure can be justified in a world of jus cogens prohibition of the use of force.   In public international law, new rules of customary law emerge through sufficient State practice and opinio juris, therefore it might turn out that humanitarian interventions will be justified under customary international law. Always when concerned with the protection of human rights, specific criteria shall be drawn in order to prevent abuses. The present book is a master thesis, which is going to answer the question of justifiability of the use of force for humanitarian purposes without the United Nations Security Council approval, drawn from Iraq and Kosovo cases, and evolving customary international law.   “If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?” (Kofi Annan, Millennium Report of Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2000)

Recent Publications

image1

Volume I - Cultural Diplomacy: Waging War by other Means
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau

The peaceful collapse of the Soviet totalitarian, communist system has been a watershed of historic proportions in Europe and the world. In 1989, unexpectedly, Communism and the Cold War were behind us, they were bad and should be forgotten. The immediate post-1989 world presented itself as a new era of organised forgetting, as neither East nor West were interested in examining the prolonged period of acquiescence in absurdities. The Berlin Wall, paramount symbol of absurdity, had to be erased from the face of the earth and the memory of the people. Only much later have we become aware how much the heritage of repression and division still dominates our thinking. The principal organisations of Western and European cooperation have been enlarged Eastward, but the fruits of peaceful, spiritual revolution have turned sour. Far too little has changed for the better and far too many old habits have survived. For the question asked in this volume: Is bilateral cultural diplomacy waging war with other means? There still is no good answer. The surprise of 1989 has apparently paralyzed policies thereafter. Despite resounding declarations and non-binding resolutions on a new order, there was no vision, no strategy and no clear purpose. The basic approach was “more of the same”. Cultural diplomacy had no priority and budgets were cut in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century. Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.

image1

Footprints of the 20th Century - Third Edition
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau

Since 1989, we refer to the whole post-war period as the “Cold War Era”. Such was not the case in 1968. At the time, the Cold War – in our perception – was behind us. We no longer felt to be in the midst of it. Europeans on the Western side of the Iron Curtain0 felt relatively at ease with Europe’s division. The era of Détente as we called it, was0 considered to be a fairly stable and long-lasting political condition, even after Soviet tanks crushed Dubcek’s socialism with a human face in Prague.
A strange year it was… 1968. Academic interest was focused on the war in Vietnam, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the French Gaullist challenge to the European Communities and the student revolt in Paris. The Western democracies promoted the process of détente on the basis of three political illusions. They assumed that common institutions between East and West would generate a sense of common interest in European security, facilitating negotiated solutions of outstanding problems. They expected East-West economic cooperation to promote reform from above in the East, towards more open societies. They hoped to foster democracy and respect for human
rights through cooperation in the cultural and human dimension. By 1989 all three of them had proven to be illusions. The end of the Soviet system came as a complete surprise to most politicians and to all Western advocates of détente in the Nineteen Eighties. The so-called dissidents won a peaceful victory over the one-party, repressive regimes in the East and helped to end the post-war division of Europe. Obviously, neither the (now former) communists nor the advocates of détente ever admitted their wrong. So they went all into the business of proclaiming a new era as a continuation of the old one. The greatest catastrophe of the Twentieth Century was Lenin`s creation of totalitarian Soviet Russia at the end of the Great War and not its collapse at the end0 of the Cold War, as president Putin said in 2005. This volume particularly challenges the past illusions of détente and the present approach of organized forgetting the past.
Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This0 series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are0 said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century.
Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.  

image1

Footprints of the 20th Century - Third Edition
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau

The story of European Unification is fascinating. In 1950, two sworn enemies – France and Germany – decide to seek reconciliation and European federal unity. As a first step, they created the European Coal and Steel Community together with Italy and the Benelux countries. The fathers of this new Europe were visionary persons. Does today`s student or scholar still know who Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi or Willem Beyen were and what they stood for? At the time, the United Kingdom refused the invitation to join such a federal project. Under American pressure they asked for admission in 1961, entered in 1973 without ever accepting the federal project and decided to leave in March 2017 after a small majority voted for Brexit in June 2016. What began as a process of reconciliation between two enemies – France and Germany – became a peaceful enlargement of the European Union to twenty-eight Member States. The division of Europe between a Soviet dominated East and a Euro-Atlantic West is no more. This volume not only tells a success story. It also makes us understand why after more than sixty years the Germans lack the solidarity and the French the political vision to turn the Euro-crisis into true progress towards unity. Against the background of Europe`s long and turbulent history, this book may also help to understand why it is so difficult to overcome nationalism and to practice the virtue of solidarity so central to the Christian source of Europe as a civilization. Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century. Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.

webdesign by Robiz.nl Webdesign & Webhosting Oisterwijk