"As the Court has stated several times, citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States"A clear reference to the Maastricht treaty which was mentioned by Advocate General Sharpston in her answer to question 1 concerning citizenship of the European Union: Can one invoke rights derived from Union citizenship merely from residence in one’s Member State of nationality?
"In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty introduced European citizenship as a novel and complementary status for all Member State nationals. By granting to every citizen the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the new Treaty recognised the essential role of individuals, irrespective of whether or not they were economically active, within the newly created Union. Each individual citizen enjoys rights and owes duties that together make up a new status – a status which the Court declared in 2001 was ‘destined to become the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States'"Advocate General Sharpton states further down in the opinion of Advocate General:
"124. If the Court accepts the reasoning that I have put forward in respect of question 1, this question (Question 2 concerning reverse discrimination) becomes redundant. If the Court does not follow me, however, it becomes necessary to consider whether Article 18 TFEU may be invoked to address reverse discrimination of this kind."In other words, the claim in the press release on the website of Dutch foreign affairs that the court
"does not follow the much more radical anti-discrimination course proposed by Advocate General Sharpston"is false (A statement that should be removed and correctted). The court in Luxemburg does not need to adress Question 2 concerning Reverse discrimination as Advocate General Sharpton points out clearly in the above statement.
Read more in my collection of interesting blogposts and links relating to the Ruiz Zambrano ruling.