Freedom of movement! for European citizens! is one of those acquired rights that would be difficult to give up. Moreover! the exercise of the latter by a Community national has been examined several times by the judges of Luxembourg! since it can be invoked by all those who move (or intend to move) to a.
“Member State other than that of which
[they are] nationals”! including their respective Free movement family mbers! as can be seen from art. 3! paragraph 1! of Directive 2004/38. b2b email list Yet! one might wonder what would happen if the person claiming a series of accessory rights! precisely on the basis of what is established by the aforementioned directive! holds the citizenship of two Member States. In reality! albeit with specific prerogatives (as already mentioned on this blog )! the CJEU has already.Family life under
Free movement found itself having to discuss these issues:
in the case of Mrs McCarthy ( C-434-09 )! it was established! for example! that it is precisely thanks to the exercise of free movement that the caseno email list individual becomes worthy of protection and caquest recognition of the rights of an EU citizen. However! precisely in the ruling in question! the Court interpreted the reference legislation in a «literal! teleological and systematic» manner! excluding direct applicability! even to spouses from third countries! since.
The aforementioned regulatory reference deals only with «the modalities exercising the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States» (see Morviducci! 2017 ! 51). So! how should this directive be applied in the case in which a transfer to another State has taken place and family life under scrutiny by the cjeu in the lounes case the individual has become a citizen there! by virtue of national legislation.
