[ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. Whereas the existence of CBI/RBI schemes affects all Member States; whereas the operation of a CBI/RBI scheme by an individual Member State thus generates significant externalities on other Member States; whereas those externalities warrant regulation by the Union; whereas this does not, however, warrant any exceeding or extension of EU competence; whereas nationality law remains entirely a Member State competence;

2021/12/15
Committee: LIBE

Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. Whereas the operation of CBI schemes lead to the commodification of Union citizenship; whereas such commodification of rights is not compatible with Union values~~, in particular equality~~;

2021/12/15
Committee: LIBE

Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges that regulating the 5. acquisition of nationality is primarily a Member State competence but stresses that that competence needs to be exercised in good faith, in a spirit of mutual respect, transparently, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation and in full respect of Union law15; considers that where Member States do not act in full compliance with those standards and principles, a legal ground for Union action arises; considers that a Union competence could also arise on the basis of Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) with respect to certain aspects of Member State nationality law16; _________________ 15 See the reasoning used in the Commission infringement procedures against Malta and Cyprus with respect to their investor citizenship schemes (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorn er/detail/en/ip_20_1925) and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgment of the Court of 7 July 1992, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, C-369/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:295; Judgment of the Court of 11 November 1999, Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah, C- 179/98, ECLI:EU:C:1999:549; Judgment of the Court of 20 February 2001, Judgment of the Court of 20 February 2001, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur, C-192/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:106; Judgment of the Court of 2 March 2010, Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern, C- 135/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:104; and Judgment of the Court of 12 March 2019, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, C-221/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:189. 16EPRS EAVA Study, pp. 43-44.

2021/12/15
Committee: LIBE

Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that the advantageous conditions and fast-track procedures set for investors under CBI/RBI schemes~~, when compared to the conditions and procedures for other third-country nationals wishing to obtain international protection, residence or citizenship, are discriminatory, lack fairness and~~ undermine the integrity of the Union ~~asylum and~~ migration acquis;

2021/12/15
Committee: LIBE

4 Amendments of Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE related to 2021/2026(INL)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024