All residents of European Union (EU) member states get pleasure from EU citizenship. It was formally created with the passage of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, similtaneously the European Union. EU citizenship enhances, not replaces, nationwide citizenship.  It gives EU residents with the rights, freedoms and authorized protections underneath EU legislation.
EU residents get pleasure from freedom of motion, in addition to freedom of settlement and employment throughout the EU. They’ll freely commerce and transport items, providers and capital throughout EU nationwide borders with out restrictions on capital actions or charges.  Residents have the appropriate to vote of their state of residence and to face in elections as candidates, in addition to to vote for EU elections and to take part within the European Citizenship Initiative.
EU citizenship confers the consular safety of the embassies of different EU member states when an individual’s nation of nationality is just not represented within the embassy or consulate of the international nation for which they want safety or different kinds of help.  EU residents have the appropriate to deal with the European Parliament, the European Ombudsman and EU establishments immediately in any EU treaty language, offered that the problems raised are throughout the competence of that establishment. 
EU residents benefit from the authorized protections of EU legislation, together with the EU Constitution and Acts and Directives on the safety of non-public information, the rights of victims of crime, the prevention and combating of human trafficking, equal pay for equal work, and exemptions in employment. Discrimination based mostly on faith or perception, sexual orientation and age.  EU residents can immediately contact the Workplace of the European Ombudsman.
“The introduction of a European type of citizenship with clear rights and duties was thought of as early because the Sixties”.  EU citizenship was first launched by the Maastricht Treaty and prolonged by the Amsterdam Treaty.  Previous to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the European Neighborhood treaties offered ensures for the free motion of individuals engaged in financial actions, however usually others didn’t. The 1951 Treaty of Paris established the European Coal and Metal Neighborhood, establishing the appropriate to free motion of staff in these industries, and the 1957 Treaty of Rome offered for the free motion of staff and providers.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of treaty provisions by the European Court docket of Justice has not a slender financial objective, however a broader social and financial objective.  Within the Levin case, the Court docket held that “freedom of employment is essential, not solely as a way of making a single marketplace for the economies of member states, but additionally as a employee’s proper to lift his or her way of life”.  In response to the European Court docket of Justice case legislation, a employee’s proper to free motion applies whatever the objective of the employee’s employment overseas, part-time and full-time employment, and whether or not the employee requires extra funds from the Member State to which he moved help.  Because the European Court docket of Justice held that recipients of providers have the appropriate to free motion underneath the treaty, and that this criterion is definitely met, in follow, the nationals of every EU nation are in one other member state, whether or not or not they’re engaged in financial actions. actions, have a proper to non-discrimination underneath Article 12 of the Treaty on the European Neighborhood even earlier than the Maastricht Treaty. 
Within the Martinez Sala case, the European Court docket of Justice held that the Citizenship Clause offered a substantive proper to equal remedy, as was already conferred by commerce union legislation. The Baumbast case later established that the appropriate to equal remedy applies equally to economically energetic and economically inactive residents. Regardless of these broad interpretations, the landmark Dano case, which mixed requirements of freedom of motion and equal remedy, stated they have been interdependent and subsequently restricted the scope of Martinez Sala.