Justification Of Case C-34/09 (ONEm) Case Study

Examination of Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano V ONEm, focusing on the judgment's implications for EU citizenship and employment rights.

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
11 Pages 2850Words

Justification Of Case C-34/09 (ONEm)

1. Introduction

The rational judgment provides protection to the citizen towards their independence and this must be conducted based on their significant comprises of actions. Alignment of constitutional law has to be approved in such a confrontation so that the Government must not face any barrier in the proceedings. This study provides a critical evaluation of a controversial case study of “Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano V Office national de l’emploi (ONEm, Belgium)” that references a “preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)”. The background of the case, based on the judgment of the court, and a vivid discussion of the associated case laws have been discussed in this study. The justification of the judgment of Advocate General Sharpston has been critically evaluated.

Trust New Assignment Help for unparalleled academic assistance. With our assignment help online in the UK, students receive personalized support and guidance from experienced professionals. Explore our Free Sample to access a wealth of knowledge and elevate your academic performance.

2.Background of the case ONEm

Case C-34/09 (ONEm) took place in Belgium in March 2011 and due to the "non-refoulment provision", a married couple of Colombian nationals, who asked for “asylum in Belgium” chose to remain there, for being rejected in the application. Two of this couple's children were born in Belgium, and as a result, were given “Belgian citizenship”. In this regard, to this information, the father of two children applied for both a "residence visa" and an "unemployment benefit" after being forced to quit working owing to "a lack of a work permit" (Voronov et al. 2019). The "administrative authority" denied this last application, but the tribunal where the authority's decision was questioned chose to submit the matter to the ECJ. The “European Court of Justice (ECJ)” has followed the consequences based on “Article 20 TFEU”.

A Member State is prohibited by "Article 20 TFEU" from attempting to deny a "third country national" who is entirely reliant on "his minor children", who are citizens of the EU. The right to reside in the "Member State of residence" and the 'nationality' of those children, as well as from refusing to grant that third country national a work permit was deprived. In this regard, such actions prevented those children from truly enjoying the "substance of the rights attached" to the 'stipulation'. “Article 20 TFEU” portrays Everyone who is a citizen of the Union has the nationality of one of the Member States (Supriatna, 2020). The " Union citizenship" should is supposed to be in addition to and not in substitution of "national citizenship".

The judgment of the case as per “Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU” conveys that Regardless if the "minor child" has initially exercised his right to "freedom of movement within the territory of the Member States", the minor child is entitled to the "right of residence" under the laws of the European Union (EU). The judgment portrays the territory of the "Member State" of which the minor child holds nationality. Granting a "derived right of residence" to "an ascendant relative" who is a citizen of a "third country" and who is reliant on "the minor kid". It comes under the same circumstances and effects on the minor child's rights (Rueckert, 2019). This has been associated with a residency on "the employment law criteria" that the minor's "third country's national ascendant relative" must meet.

3. Judgement on Case

The Court has provided judgment based on “Article 20 TFEU” and has conveyed that the “status of citizen of the Union” of every person holds the “nationality of a Member State”. As cited by Mezzadra (2020), the context of defending “Office National de l'Emploi” has provided the category of “Citizenship, EU Treaty Rights” and considered that the children of Ruiz Zambrano are the “citizens of the Union”. In this context, it has been considered that they are supposed to “leave the territory of the Union in order to accompany their parents”. On the behalf of such circumstances, the “citizens of the Union” are supposed to be “unable to exercise the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union”.

The judgment portrays the reference to a historic ruling experience based on “tribunal du travail de Bruxelles - Belgium”. As per an article authored by Ismailov (2020), the judgment on the case of “Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano V Office national de l’emploi (ONEm, Belgium)” the right “precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent”. As per the statement of Hooghe and Marks (2019), the principal virtue relevant to the judgment must not be beneficial for both parties and, in this regard, some dilemma must be faced in the consideration between two employment or citizen.

This judgment also refuses the application regarding the “residence and unemployment benefit” of Ruiz Zambrano. As per the words of Herd and Moynihan (2019), the legal administration conveys challenging concerns, and the conceptual form of being a citizen or the concern of citizenship has been clarified through this case study. This is the utmost advantageous constraint of this case based on the “Article 20 TFEU”. The development of “EU citizenship” has been questioned throughout this case, and, in this context, it has convinced the “subsequent case law of the Court of Justice and the Dutch courts is assessed to reveal its impact on EU citizenship and the protection of fundamental rights”.

This unique case has portrayed Ruiz Zambrano as a ‘revolution’ as irrespective of “the exercise of free movement, nationals of the Member States can invoke their status of being an EU citizen” he has fought for fundamental rights. As per the views of Habermas (2020), the contribution of this case has significantly clarified the rules and regulations to be followed in citizenship, and the boundaries of advantages and disadvantages of the same. The right of fundamental concerns is provided to protect the citizens and not for extra benefit, and the same has been evidenced in this case law with proper justification.

The description of the court based on “Union in Gryzelczyk” on the potential of “similar significance to its seminal statement in Van Gend en Loos that the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights” has to be determined thoroughly. As stated by Farrell et al. (2020), the association of subjective comprises regarding the comprising context of nationality and “Member States” composition has been portrayed and described vividly. This opinion in the context of the “Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)” has been judged thoroughly and has focused on the management of citizenship.

4. Discussion on Case law

Similar case law on the fundamental rights and citizenship approach has been signed in this context and for this purpose. The Case law of “R (Johnson) v the Secretary of State relating to British nationality law” has been considered in this study. As narrated by Craig and De (2020), the case considers the arousal of a question regarding if the “subordinate legislation was ultra vires” or not. The fee for “the exercise” has been provided based on the right of a young individual or a child “to be registered as a British citizen at a level which many young applicants have found to be unaffordable”.

It has been considered that the verdict of the case emphasizes the “judgment of David Richards LJ ([2021] EWCA Civ 193; [2021] 1 WLR 3049)”. The challenges faced regarding the charitable constraints of “Registration of Children as British Citizens (the PRCBC)” to provide legal advice (Villazor and Johnson, 2019). As influenced by Cetrà and Harvey (2019), the association of “the charity, Amnesty International UK” appeals regarding the permission of the case. The consideration of the establishment of a relevant regime regarding “the acquisition of citizenship of the UK. Section 1(1)” must consider the subsequence with the outsider of the UK (Brkan, 2019).

Similar cases have been considered and aligned with the citizenship concerns and the case of “Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7” has been approached and discussed in this study. It considers the application of begum for judicial laws and administrative support regarding the request of “Order of the Court of Appeal that Begum should be given leave to enter the United Kingdom, which it overturned”. As per the statement of Hooper (2022), the application of Begum was dismissed and has been scrutinized for “judicial review” while considering the “Special Immigration Appeals Commission's preliminary decision in a deprivation of citizenship appeal”.

The “Court of Appeal judgment” considers the management of security concerns and manages the returning policies of the “UK citizenship right”. As influenced by Barbulescu and Favell (2020), the maintenance of specific appeal while aligning with the “Home Secretary's decision” the grant of Begum to be entered into the UK provision as well as from leaving other territories are required to be shared with significant traveling documents that must be present at the time of judgment. Due to a lack of evidence and critical support, the case has not been supported with the required elements and jurisdiction. The “decision to allow Begum's appeal against SIAC's decision dismissing the leave to enter an appeal, and to order that leave to enter the United Kingdom be granted” has been taken subsequently (Bárd, 2020).

5. Justification of the judgment

The judgment of the “Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)” is significant in certain contexts and that is the reason for supporting the decision on the case ONEm. As opined by Brkan (2019), the “work permit” has been made limited through this case and has prevented to acquire the liquidity of any outsider. As the children of Ruiz Zambrano claimed to be citizens, that does not convey that their father is also a citizen of the same nationality. This is the reason for rejecting the convention of the acquisition of employment. Besides this, it has also been mentioned that the “fundamental rights narrative in the cases on Article 20 TFEU” aligns with the “national level and the Dutch case law”.

The maintenance of specific considerations must be aligned and approached while determining the statement that "Cross-Border Is No Longer a Precondition for EU Citizenship Rights". As per the vision of Cetrà and Harvey (2019), the significance of approaching the "EU citizenship right" judgment on the case ONEm does not create any obstacle to meeting deprivation. However, the fundamental rights have been subsequently followed and the judgment of the subsequent laws of other case laws provides evidence of the same.


This study provides a sequenced format of judgment regarding the maintenance of citizenship rights as well as other beneficiaries that are required to be provided based on the jurisdiction of Article 20. In this study, Case C-34/09 (ONEm) which is the “Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano V Office national de l’emploi (ONEm, Belgium)” specifically has been judged. The statement of the judge of “the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)" is positive from certain perspectives. It is advantageous for maintaining the rights of all citizens and subsequent employability. It has been considered that limited employment is a constraint of the UK to a certain extent, and, in this regard, the individual who is not fully considered a citizen of a domain must not get employment in that region. The Case law of "R (Johnson) v the Secretary of State relating to British nationality law" and "Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7" have been described with the same context of protecting nationality and fundamental rights. The background of the case, based on the judgment of the court, and a vivid discussion of the associated case laws have been furnished in this study. The justification of the judgment of Advocate General Sharpston has critically functioned. It has been constructed for securing the employment of the same land and the citizenship of the land. This is the major reason for supporting the judgment of the court and the maintenance and carrying forward the context of "judgment in the Ruiz Zambrano case”. The entire study is significant in the context of understanding the “Article 20 TFEU” portraying equality to certain constraints.


Barbulescu, R. and Favell, A., 2020. Commentary: A citizenship without social rights? EU freedom of movement and changing access to welfare rights. International Migration, 58(1), pp.151-165. Available at: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/146482/1/citizenship_without_social_rights_AAM%20240419.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Bárd, P., 2020. The rule of law and academic freedom or the lack of it in Hungary. European Political Science, 19, pp.87-96. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petra-Bard/publication/325368065_The_rule_of_law_and_academic_freedom_or_the_lack_of_it_in_Hungary/links/5c782afc92851c6950492401/The-rule-of-law-and-academic-freedom-or-the-lack-of-it-in-Hungary.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Brkan, M., 2019. The essence of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection: finding the way through the maze of the CJEU’s constitutional reasoning. German Law Journal, 20(6), pp.864-883. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/00621C26FA14CCD55AD0B4F4AD38ED09/S207183221900066Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-essence-of-the-fundamental-rights-to-privacy-and-data-protection-finding-the-way-through-the-maze-of-the-cjeu-s-constitutional-reasoning-div.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Cetrà, D. and Harvey, M., 2019. Explaining accommodation and resistance to demands for independence referendums in the UK and Spain. Nations and nationalism, 25(2), pp.607-629. Available at: https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/13961/Nations_and_Nationalism_Article_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Craig, P. and De Búrca, G., 2020. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials UK Version. Oxford University Press, USA. Available at: https://toc.library.ethz.ch/objects/pdf03/z01_978-0-19-871492-7_01.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Farrell, D.M., Suiter, J., Harris, C. and Cunningham, K., 2020. The effects of mixed membership in a deliberative forum: The Irish constitutional convention of 2012–2014. Political Studies, 68(1), pp.54-73. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0032321719830936 (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Habermas, J., 2020. The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. In Critical Theory and Society A Reader (pp. 136-142). Routledge. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/download/56426612/STUDI_MEDIA_DAN_BUDAYA.pdf#page=112 (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Herd, P. and Moynihan, D.P., 2019. Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation. Available at: https://anzsog.edu.au/app/uploads/2022/06/Administrative-Burden-Policy-Making-by-Other-Means.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Hooghe, L. and Marks, G., 2019. Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(8), pp.1113-1133. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13501763.2019.1569711?needAccess=true&role=button (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Hooper, H., 2022. Justice for one Side Alone? R.(On the Application of Begum)(Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)[2021] UKSC 7. Public Law, (January 2022). Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7eb87525-72db-423e-b608-be4c5cba5abe/files/r6682x437s (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Ismailov, K., 2020. To the issue of personal information circulation in the national police databases. Fundamental and applied researches in practice of leading scientific schools, 38(2), pp.41-45. Available at: https://www.farplss.org/index.php/journal/article/download/681/635 (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Mezzadra, S., 2020. The Citizen and the Subject: A Post-Colonial Constitution for the European Union?. In Conflict, Power, and the Landscape of Constitutionalism (pp. 80-92). Routledge India. Available at: https://desexil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MEZZADRA.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Rueckert, C., 2019. Cryptocurrencies and fundamental rights. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), p.tyz004. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/cybsec/tyz004/28847983/tyz004.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Supriatna, E., 2020. Socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Bandung City. Journal of Governance, 5(1), pp.61-70. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bddf/0c3f80356ad45f300b52712369159bebeda9.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Villazor, R.C. and Johnson, K.R., 2019. The Trump administration and the war on immigration diversity. Wake Forest L. Rev., 54, p.575. Available at: https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/SSRN-id3381885.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

Voronov, A.M., Kobzar-Frolova, M.N., Redkous, V.M. and Gogolev, A.M., 2019. Civil society of modern Russia: problems of implementation of constitutional rights and freedoms. Available at: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/45776/1/Civil_society_of_modern_Russia.pdf (Accessed on: 22.03.23)

35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*