Vlieks 145 for Member States to view nationality as an expression of a genuine link between it and an individual and that absence of such link could result in loss of nationality.34 In particular, the CJEU says that a criterion in nationality law based on habitual residence outside of a Member State and the territories of the EU for an uninterrupted period of 10 years ‘may be regarded as an indication that there is no such link.’35 Furthermore, lack of a genuine link between the parent(s) of a minor and the Member State can also be viewed as lack of a genuine link between the child and the relevant state. The legitimacy of such considerations with regard to (loss of) nationality is further supported, according to the Court, by the fact no one could become stateless as a result of the nationality provisions in question and the fact that there was a possibility for retaining the genuine link if the individual concerned requests a travel document or similar document within said 10-year period.36 With regard to the last point, it is concerning that the individual in question has to take action in order to retain the bond of nationality, whereas the state can just “sit back and relax” and provide for automatic loss of nationality after a certain period of time—almost as if they are ‘erasing’ you.37 If nationality really were to be a reciprocal bond, the state would also have a role to play, for instance in terms of timely notification and information as regards loss of nationality in case of prolonged or permanent residence abroad. Even if the CJEU may have found it interfering too much in the competences of the Member States to make a comment on this, the fact that this type of automatic loss also resulted in loss of EU citizenship gave the Court the opportunity to comment on what EU citizenship means and what rights and duties are to be taken into account by both the individual and the state in case of loss of this status. The judgement in Tjebbes, therefore, does not help advocacy for autonomous EU citizenship as it proves that loss of a genuine link with one Member State justifies loss of EU citizenship.38 Nonetheless, in case of absence of a genuine link between a person and a Member State, the Court did make clear that EU citizenship requires states to make an individual examination of the consequences of loss of nationality in view of EU law, which may in certain situations include the possibility of recovering a nationality that was erroneously lost. 6 Statelessness? Unlike the Rottmann case, Tjebbes did not concern statelessness as such. However, the Court did make a point of examining whether the provisions of the Law on Nationality were in line with relevant provisions on the avoidance of statelessness in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961 Convention) and the European Convention of Nationality (ECN).39 Indeed, the CJEU held that ‘[t]he risk of becoming stateless is precluded, in the present case, by the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings, given that their application is conditional on the possession by the person concerned of the nationality of another State in addition to [the nationality of the Member State]’.40 This seems to point in the direction of some concern of the Court with avoidance of statelessness. Less promising with regard to the issue of statelessness is that we already saw that the Tjebbes case does not further the possible development of autonomous EU citizenship, which has in the past been considered as a potential avenue for addressing the situation of stateless persons in the EU.41 Still, the fact that the CJEU held that an individual assessment of the consequences of loss of nationality is required in all cases in view of the principle of proportionality could be relevant also to cases where loss of nationality results in statelessness, even if it will not necessarily prevent stateless—as Rottmann already demonstrated. 7 Tjebbes: a Next Step? Considering past jurisprudence of the CJEU on nationality matters, Tjebbes certainly presents a next step in case law in this area. The case strongly affirms that loss of nationality of a Member State raises an issue under EU law because it entails loss of EU citizenship, regardless of whether the person(s) involved used free movement rights. In addition, it sheds light on the proportionality test with regard to loss of (EU) citizenship 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Tjebbes (n 1) para 35. ibid, para 36. ibid, paras 37–38. cf D Kochenov, ‘The Tjebbes Fail: Going Farcical about Bulgakovian Truths’ (Verfassungsblog, 5 April 2019) <https://verfassungsblog.de/the-tjebbes-fail-going-farcical-about-bulgakovian-truths/> accessed 17 April 2019. See also S Coutts, ‘Bold and Thoughtful’ (n 33). Art 7 1961 Convention; Art 7 ECN. Tjebbes (n 1) para 37. eg M de Verneuil, ‘Nationality: Romani; Citizenship: European’ (2016) Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2016/03.