Everyone is free to disagree, but one should at least be honest about their own economic dependencies and show some decency in the language they use.

Those basic requirements are also part of living in a democratic society

4/4

Yet they come and portray themselves as defenders of the weak and the oppressed, throwing around grand terms like “illiberal Union” or accusing others of having “no reasoning.”

3/4

Some of the most vocal academics are funded by the very organizations that promote these schemes which—let’s not fool ourselves—are primarily designed for the wealthy.

2/4

As you are aware, horizontality is a very sensitive matter.
Plus, if Bauer and co were landmark cases, their expends to horizontality was arguably also conditioned on the link with the 'essence' of a fundamental rights. Was it really the case in Plamaro? 3/3

Does Plamaro really qualify as a landmark? Was AMS one?
Isn't the possibility of distinguishing stronger if one wants to still develop the case-law? Then, Plamaro might just be a case-specific ruling.

2/3

Great you spotted that one.

I do agree it may well amount to a deceiving decision (though you seem to acknowledge it is a very technical decision based on a very light directive). 1/3

Finally, the Court finds Malta in breach of Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, without requiring separate proof of an infringement of the latter.

If correct, this approach reflects an evolution in the Court’s case-law on Article 4(3) TEU.

6/6

Particular emphasis is placed on the divergent residence conditions: whereas the program requires only formal legal residence, ordinary naturalisation typically necessitates actual and effective residence.

5/6

Next, in substantive terms, it focuses on the transactional nature of the program, highlighting that discrepancy between this program and the requirements imposed under the ordinary naturalisation process.
The remainder of the Court’s reasoning is both comprehensive and well-structured.
4/6

Instead, the Court affirms that Union citizenship "constitutes the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States". In doing so, the Court is, at last, articulating the true nature of Union citizenship—clearly and unequivocally stating what it really is.
3/6

Perhaps the most notable development appears in paragraph 92, where the Court expressly moves away from the previously used “is intended” formulation when it comes to Union citizenship.
2/6

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8H...