ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

the court characterizes proportionality through-out the
judgment. The second part critiques some of the views
expressed regarding the relationship between proportionality
and the intensity of review. It builds on the
previous section to propose a way in which to construct
proportionality in an institutionally sensitive manner.
The final third part builds on the previous two sections,
Pham in order to construct a general framework for
balancing in citizenship deprivation cases that could,
among other things, accommodate questions about
the role of European citizenship beyond the question
of competences.
Zane Rasnaca: Who decides who is welcome
here? The issue of competence when banishing
EU citizens
In the EU the CJEU, lawmakers, and member
states engage in an interplay, which to a large extent
is structured by the division of competences. The area
of citizenship is no exception, from a matter solely for
national law it has become subject to active multi-level
coordination. The paper looks at the issues arising
from the division of competences both horizontally
and vertically between the CJEU, national courts, and
EU lawmakers concerning the deprivation of citizenship
and the regulatory imbalance that arises. A closer
look at EU law and case law (for example Rottman, and
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
illustrates the extremely important role played by ‘competence’
in structuring the relationship between the
CJEU, from one side, and the EU lawmakers and member
states, from the other. While in the vertical plane
(EU vs. national level) this is an old story, the horizontal
(CJEU vs. EU lawmakers) coordination potential of
‘competence’ has remained less explored.
Concurring panels 109