nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/7facd9bb1128174c DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 250505s2025||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/7facd9bb1128174c doi eng 342 23 van den Brink, Martijn Author aut Why bother with legal reasoning? - The CJEU Judgment in Commission v Malta (Citizenship by Investment) van den Brink, Martijn Verfassungsblog 2025-05-05 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Hindsight can make one look naive. Following the Opinion of Advocate General Collins in Commission v Malta, I argued that ‘the rhetorical battle over citizenship by investment has been won by the EU institutions’ but that ‘emotions and rhetoric alone should not decide legal battles’. Of course, I should have known better: the central dogma on which a large lineage of EU citizenship cases rests – that EU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals – is a rhetorical device without basis in EU law. And once again, in the Commission v Malta ruling of 29 April 2025, on whether Malta was in breach of its obligations under EU law by maintaining and promoting a citizenship by investment (CBI) scheme, the Court prioritised rhetoric and political expediency over solid legal argumentation. CC BY-SA 4.0 Citizenship by Investment Commission v Malta EU citizenship Maltese investment citizenship Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/why-bother-with-legal-reasoning/ raw object