As a contribution to the second direction of analysis of the relationship between EU law and socio-economic inequalities in the EU, I propose a paper on the institution of EU citizenship under the lens of distributive justice in the EU. The main question that the paper seeks to answer is: How should EU citizenship rights be distributed?

As of today, EU citizenship rights are distributed largely by way of nationality in Member States. Nationality serves as the exclusive link between the individual and EU citizenship which is the primary conveyor of civil and social rights on the EU level. Meanwhile, these rights to equal treatment and to move and reside freely within the Union have far-reaching implications in a socio-economic sense. Rights akin to those enjoyed by EU citizens are granted to (some) third-country nationals (TCNs) by other means than EU citizenship status, including family members of Union citizens, and various other groups of TCNs in the EU whose statuses have been approximated those of EU citizens, by means, for instance, of the Long-Term Resident Directive and the Blue Card Directive. However, while some authors have gone as far as to argue that the Long-Term Resident Directive created a status that can be considered ‘a subsidiary form of EU citizenship’ and a ‘truly post-national form of membership’ (Acosta, 2015), I argue in this paper that EU citizenship remains valuable. EU citizenship civil and social rights are safeguarded better by EU citizenship and are less fragmented and stratified. EU citizenship matters.

In the paper, I also argue that the EU can be seen as an actor of justice (Kochenov, 2015), and that it is possible to conceive of a political conception of social justice in the EU. This argument has important conceptual implications for the institution of EU citizenship and the question of how EU citizenship rights should be distributed. In the paper I will show that once we examine EU citizenship in view of a political conception of social justice in the EU, we will see that for EU citizenship to be just, the distribution of EU citizenship cannot be contingent on nationality: a morally arbitrary connecting factor between the individual and EU citizenship which, as of today, as an institution, exacerbates socio-economic inequalities in the EU. We need to think of an alternative connecting factor, which, in line with social membership theory, could be a five-year residence criterion.

The close links between precarious work and socio-economic inequality are recognised at EU level (Parliament 2015, 2017; Commission 2017, 2022; EESC 2018). Focusing on the legal treatment of archetypical figures of precarious workers under EU law, this paper discusses how EU law acts with respect to this root cause of socio-economic inequality. The traditional EU approach towards the classic figures of precarious workers, namely non-standard workers, was to secure their equal treatment with standard workers regarding working conditions. This approach does not shield precarious workers against the risks of underemployment and in-work poverty, which are conducive to socio-economic inequality. Recently, the EU legislator adopted the Adequate Minimum Wages Directive to counter wage inequality, without however taking decisive steps to tackle or reduce modern forms of precarious employment. Considering that precarious employment concerns predominantly groups facing structural disadvantage and inequality in society (migrants, racial and ethnic minorities’ members, low education and skills level workers), the EU precarious work regulation does not sufficiently pave the way towards diminishing socio-economic inequalities. Against these regulatory developments, the Court’s challenge of national regimes excluding domestic workers from unemployment protection and employers' working time recording obligations based on EU law offers a glimmer of hope. It shows how EU law can be used to address risks associated with a model of precarious employment in which a group of structurally disadvantaged workers, i.e., migrant or of migrant background women, is overrepresented and how it can also reduce their bargaining power inequality, thereby soothing socio-economic inequalities. The paper calls for a holistic examination of the interactions between precarious workers and EU law to better understand how EU law may contribute to a more equal society in substantive terms.

My paper discusses how EU law frames the relationship between its Member States through the principle of equality. This principle is widely regarded as foundational to the EU legal order and – because of the close cooperation between EU Member States – considered distinct from sovereign equality under international law. While the 2008 financial crisis brought political and socio-economic inequalities in the context of European integration to the fore, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the principle of Member State equality in EU law. I will demonstrate that EU law’s conception of Member State equality overlooks – and often conceals – power inequalities between Member States, their diverse social, political, and economic situations, and social conflicts within Member States, and thereby reinforces socio-economic inequalities across Europe. On the basis of egalitarian theories of distributive justice and a historical reconstruction of European integration, I develop further a novel material principle of Member State equality. At a minimum, this principle would require EU law to address inequalities arising from European integration, while more ambitious notions would address inequalities stemming from morally arbitrary factors. This paper situates EU law within broader discussions about the relationship between law, inequality, and justice and shows how EU law contains aspects of what Jedediah Britton-Purdy et al. describe as the ‘late Twentieth-Century Synthesis’ where the constitutional principle of equality is separated from questions of economic power and socio-economic inequality.