Toothless European Citizenship / Šimon Uradnik

CONCLUSION The objective of this monograph has been to examine the factual relationship and the legal relationship between the European Union and a Union citizen, namely, whether their qualities are of such grade that they would give rise to the factual relation in the form of the genuine link, respectively, to the legal relation in the form of the direct bond. Whereby they would provide a citizen of the Union with protection against an involuntary deprivation of his or her Union citizenship unreservedly by a Member State, the rationale of which the reader may find in Introduction. To answer the central research question — whether the essence of Union citizenship is the factual relation in the form of the genuine link, and whether the essence is the legal relation in the form of the author’s established concept of the direct bond — the author must state, on the basis of the developed research, that the essence of Union citizenship be neither the genuine link nor the direct bond, at least without further. The examination framework has been constructed upon the out comes of the judgement in Case Nottebohm, where the International Court of Justice defined the rule of real and effective nationality consisting of the social fact of attachment on the one hand and reciprocal rights and duties on the other. 282 The former is broadly rather known as the very genuine link, requirements of which the author has abstracted from the judgement, namely, the mutual societal attachment and shared political interests. In addition, the author is of the opinion that the genuine link through these requirements mirrors the concept of demos . Wherefore, the examined has become with the factual relationship between the European Union and a Union citizen also, consequently by the same framework, the existence or non-existence of europaios demos . On the basis of relevant data from the Eurobarometer, the author has found answers for both aspects of the genuine link. Regarding the mutual societal attachment, the data has shown a striking disproportion between the attachment of Union citizens to their Member States and to the European Union; whence the author implies that this requirement has not been met. In terms of shared political interests, the data from the Eurobarometer for the interest of Union citizens in either local, national or European politics do not differ fundamentally. Nevertheless, what differs is the interest of Union citizens in either national or European elections. For these outcomes, it must be stated that the requirements of the genuine link 282 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (second phase) [1955] ICJ Rep 4, 23.

74