Toothless European Citizenship / Šimon Uradnik

3.2 Autonomy of Form-Status D. Kochenov argues that the entire form-status of citizenship of the Union is inevitably derivative as the result of the rule of the acquisition, of the emergence — ius tractum . 207 To the extent of the acquisition of Union citizenship, the author of this monograph has no intention to doubt or question it; what is more, he supports and backs it. Yet, the formstatus of Union citizenship is not a monolithic phenomenon; instead, it is crucial to distinguish between different segments, id est , either the acquisition — emergence, either the sole further existence, or the final termination. These segments should be viewed separately rather than as one. Ergo, the question is whether the sole existence and the final termination of the formstatus of Union citizenship are also of a derivative character, or whether they are already of autonomous. Regarding the methodology, the author exercises the assessment on a pure legalistic basis and the postulates of the normative legal theory of H. Kelsen 208 and Czech jurisprudence in the person the of V. Knapp 209 and A. Gerloch 210 since these provide a suitable framework for the assessment of the character of Union citizenship. Citizenship of the Union has already been defined as the public legal relationship between an individual and the European Union. 211 However, before the assessment may proceed, a closer look, with regard to legal relationships, must be taken at the postulates of the normative legal theory, which has hitherto been introduced in the Englishspeaking area only partially through the translation of the work of H. Kelsen. Yet, the author cannot at all abandon his background in the Czech legal theory, 212 which had narrowly further developed the normative legal theory in terms of legal relationships, wherefore it may serve more than well for the assessment. Thus, the reader first finds 207 Dimitry Kochenov, ‘Ius Tractum of Many Faces: European Citizenship and the Difficult Relationship between Status and Rights’ (2009) 15/2 Columbia Journal of European Law 181. 208 See Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law (translated by Max Knight, University of California Press 1970). 209 See Viktor Knapp, Teorie práva (C. H. Beck 1995). 210 See Aleš Gerloch, Teorie práva (4 th edition, Aleš Čeněk 2007). 211 See note 147 above. 212 Unfortunately, the majority of the Czech jurisprudence’s theory of legal relations has not been presented, not even translated into English yet. To explain central postulates, the author draws on the above literature, for this purpose, see note 210 above, with the conjunction of the Czech-English legal dictionary — for this purpose, see Marta Chromá, Česko-anglický právnický slovník s vysvětlivkami (LEDA 2010).

52