Toothless European Citizenship / Šimon Uradnik

that time an Austria’s opposition party, 46 which proposed that Union citizenship was not supposed to be there only for nationals of the Member States but also for ‘third-country nationals who had resided legally in the [European Union] for five years’. 47 Nevertheless, any of these notions did not approach the final text of the Treaty. Ad the former information, the explicit usage of ‘complement and not replace’ may be explained by the national elites’ fear of the decline of the good old ‘nationstate’ nationality, against which D. Kostakopoulou mentions that ‘[c]omplements normally add, they do not substitute’. 48 On the opposite side of those defenders of the status quo stood the European Parliament which attempted to assure that European citizenship had not been designed to replace the nationality of a Member State but instead to be an extension of the rights of every individual Member State national. 49 1.2.2 Court of Justice’s Interventions In the period after the Treaty of Amsterdam was enacted, the Court of Justice made decisions in several cases that became more than fundamental for citizenship of the Union. In the first place, it would be appropriate to remember Case of Grzelczyk. 50 The Court of Justice in this case ruled on the rights of a French national who had studied in Belgium. During his first three years, he financed his studies by Marinho, ‘Portugal: Preserving Equality and Solidarity among Member States’ in Finn Laursen (ed), The Amsterdam Treaty: National Preference Formation Interstate Bargaining and Outcome (University Press of Southern Denmark 2002) 298. 46 Austria’s opposition was not the only one who fought for the rights of third-country nationals; besides them, they were the Migrants’ Forum, the Starting Line Group, the European AntiPoverty Network and the European Women’s Lobby; to that effect, see Dora Kostakopoulou, Citizenship, Identity, and Immigration in the European Union: Between Past and Future (Manchester University Press 2001) 75. 47 Willem Maas, Creating European Citizens (Rowman & Littlefield 2007) 68. W. Mass refers to C. Neuhold here; to that effect, see Christine Neuhold, ‘Austria: Trailing Behind and Raising the Flag’ in Finn Laursen (ed), The Amsterdam Treaty: National Preference Formation Interstate Bargaining and Outcome (University Press of Southern Denmark 2002) 34. 48 Dora Kostakopoulou, Citizenship, Identity, and Immigration in the European Union: Between Past and Future (Manchester University Press 2001) 68. 49 ‘Union citizenship is by its nature a dynamic institution, a key to the process of European integration, and expected gradually to supplement and extend the rights conferred by nationality of a Member State, while not replacing national citizenship.’ To that effect, see Resolution on the second Commission report on citizenship of the

Union (COM(97)0230−C4-0291/97) [1998] OJ C 226 61. 50 See Case C184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECLI:EU:C:2001:458.

16