CJEU Case C-689/21 / Judgment (2024)

Key facts of the case:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the European Union – Article 20 TFEU – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Citizen holding the nationality of a Member State and the nationality of a third country – Loss of the nationality of the Member State by operation of law upon reaching the age of 22 on the ground of lack of a genuine link with that Member State where no application to retain nationality has been made before the date on which that age is reached – Loss of citizenship of the Union – Examination of the proportionality of the consequences of that loss from the point of view of EU law – Limitation period.

Outcome of the case:

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

Article20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which its nationals born outside its territory who have never been resident there and have not spent time there in circ*mstances demonstrating a genuine link with that Member State lose, by operation of law, the nationality of that State at the age of 22, which entails, for persons who are not also nationals of another Member State, the loss of their citizenship of the European Union and the rights attaching thereto, provided that the persons concerned are given the opportunity to lodge, within a reasonable period, an application for the retention or recovery of the nationality, which enables the competent authorities to examine the proportionality of the consequences of the loss of that nationality from the point of view of EU law and, where appropriate, to allow the retention or recoveryex tuncof that nationality. Such a period must extend, for a reasonable length of time, beyond the date on which the person concerned reaches that age and cannot begin to run unless those authorities have duly informed that person of the loss of his or her nationality or of the imminence of that loss, and of his or her right to apply, within that period, for the maintenance or recovery of that nationality. Failing that, those authorities must be in a position to carry out such an examination, as an ancillary issue, in the context of an application by the person concerned for a travel document or any other document showing his or her nationality.

16)In support of her action before that court, X submits that, although the maintenance of a genuine link and the safeguarding of the special relationship of solidarity and good faith with the Member State in question fall within a legitimate objective, the automatic loss of Danish nationality without exception, provided for in Paragraph8(1) of the Law on Nationality, is not, however, proportionate to such an objective and is therefore contrary to Article20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article7 of the Charter.

...

23)According to the referring court, in the light of the judgment of 12March 2019,Tjebbes and Others(C‑221/17, EU:C:2019:189), there is doubt as to the compatibility with Article20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article7 of the Charter, of the loss of Danish nationality and, as the case may be, of citizenship of the Union which, pursuant to the first sentence of Paragraph8(1) of the Law on Nationality, occurs, by operation of law and without exception, at the age of 22, in view also of the difficult access to the recovery of that nationality by naturalisation after that age. That court states, in that regard, that, in the event of loss of that nationality, former Danish nationals must, in principle, satisfy the general conditions for naturalisation, even though a certain relaxation of those conditions may be granted as regards the length of residence in Denmark.

24) In those circ*mstances, the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Does Article20 TFEU, in conjunction with Article7 [of the Charter], preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which citizenship of that Member State is, in principle, lost by operation of law on reaching the age of 22 in the case of persons born outside that Member State who have never lived in that Member State and who have also not resided there in circ*mstances that indicate a close attachment to that Member State, with the result that persons who do not also have citizenship of another Member State are deprived of their status as Union citizens and of the rights attaching to that status, taking into account that it follows from the legislation at issue in the main proceedings that:

(a)a close attachment to the Member State is presumed to exist, in particular, after a total of one year’s residence in that Member State,

(b)if an application to retain citizenship is submitted before the person reaches the age of 22, authorisation to retain citizenship of the Member State under less stringent conditions may be obtained and for that purpose the competent authorities must examine the consequences of loss of citizenship, and

(c)lost citizenship can be recovered after the person concerned reaches the age of 22 only by means of naturalisation, to which a number of requirements are attached, including that of uninterrupted residence in the Member State for a longer duration, although the period of residence may be somewhat shortened for former nationals of that Member State?’

25)By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article20 TFEU, read in the light of Article7 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which its nationals born outside its territory who have never been resident there and have not spent time there in circ*mstances demonstrating a genuine link with that Member State lose, by operation of law, the nationality of that State at the age of 22, which entails, for persons who are not also nationals of another Member State, the loss of their citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, but which enables the competent authorities, in the event of an application by such a national in the year preceding his or her 22nd birthday for the purpose of retaining that nationality, to examine the proportionality of the consequences of the loss of that nationality from the point of view of EU law and, where appropriate, to allow the retention of that nationality.

...

55)As part of that examination of proportionality, it is, in particular, for the competent national authorities and, where appropriate, for the national courts to ensure that the loss of nationality is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, the observance of which the Court ensures, and specifically the right to respect for family life as stated in Article7 of the Charter. That article must be read, where appropriate, in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the best interests of the child, recognised in Article24(2) of the Charter.

...

59)It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred is that Article20 TFEU, read in the light of Article7 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which its nationals born outside its territory who have never been resident there and have not spent time there in circ*mstances demonstrating a genuine link with that Member State lose, by operation of law, the nationality of that State at the age of 22, which entails, for persons who are not also nationals of another Member State, the loss of their citizenship of the European Union and the rights attaching thereto, provided that the persons concerned are given the opportunity to lodge, within a reasonable period, an application for the retention or recovery of the nationality, which enables the competent authorities to examine the proportionality of the consequences of the loss of that nationality from the point of view of EU law and, where appropriate, to allow the retention or recoveryex tuncof that nationality. Such a period must extend, for a reasonable length of time, beyond the date on which the person concerned reaches that age and cannot begin to run unless those authorities have duly informed that person of the loss of his or her nationality or of the imminence of that loss, and of his or her right to apply, within that period, for the maintenance or recovery of that nationality. Failing that, those authorities must be in a position to carry out such an examination, as an ancillary issue, in the context of an application by the person concerned for a travel document or any other document showing his or her nationality.