<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/1c01a5b4a98d6cb3</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/its-solidarity-stupid/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>It’s solidarity, stupid! - In defence of Commission v Malta</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Spieker, Luke Dimitrios</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2025-05-07</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Citizenship by Investment</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>CJEU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Commission v Malta</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU citizenship</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Maltese investment citizenship</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>Few cases have triggered as stark reactions as Commission v Malta. In the ruling’s aftermath, many legal scholars and practitioners were quick to discard the decision.  While the ruling is bold, innovative, and goes far beyond established precedent, the Court’s reasoning remains brief, ambiguous, in some parts even obscure and sibylline. Yet, most of the Court’s “great” judgments have left room for interpretation. No doubt, Commission v Malta will be subject to many, very different, affirmative or critical interpretations. In the following, I will provide one – of several possible! – readings, which seeks to square the ruling with constitutional reasoning.</dc:description>
</dc>
