ElectronicjournalofcomparatiVeLaw,vol.8.3(october2004),<http://www.ejclorg/> Treaty. He argues as follows It has been put forward that it would be incompatible with Community law if one Mem ber State were to rule that a national residing in one of the other Member States and havingno other nationality should lose his nationality, for example, after having lived there for more than ten years. The party concemed would indeed, the argument runs, lose the protection of the EC Treaty, namely entitlement to the freedom of movement. Worse still, if he lost his mem ber State nationa lity he would lose his Union citizenship as wel There are two objections to this example. In the first place I submit that everything has been turned upside down. Whoever is a nationalof a Member State is a Union citizen, with all the rights and entitlements that result from that status Whoever is not(or no longer) a nationalof a Mem ber State is not(no longer)eligible for Union citizenship. A Union citizen is not robbed of the rights he or she is entitled to under the Treaw'so but the grounds for his or her Union citizenship and the resulting rights are cancelled as the premise Union citizenship is no longer fulfilled Secondly, the position is rather tim id. The implication of the standpoint that someone resIding in a different Mem ber State of the EC may not lose his or her nationa lity is that in the end all regulations concerning the loss of nationa lity are fundamentally forbidden under Community law because they go hand in hand with the loss of Community rights Should, for instance, Article 14(2)of the Dutch Nationality Law then come to read: Ino loss of Dutch nationality in any case takes place whatsoever should someone become stateless or lose Union citizenship as a result"? have to make clear first of all that Jessurun d 'oliveira did not sum up my arguments entirely correctly. After the words having no other nationality the words of another Member State should be added; this makes a vast difference. Secondly, I disagree with his first argument The nationality involved would be lost merely because of residence abroad, which is allowed and even guaranteed under the EC Treaty. It is therefore the exercise of rights granted by Community law that leads to the loss of European citizenship. That, in my opinion, is not acceptable His second argument is not at all convincing. I never wrote that a national of a Member State resid ing in another Member State might not lose his or her nationality. My argument was basically that residence abroad in another Member State, as the only ground for loss, is extremely problematic in view of Community law Jessurun d' Oliveira also calls attention to the fact that not all nationals of a member under EC law. That is correct, and it is my reason for always emphasising that loss oranted State resid ing in another Member State remain there as a result of residence permits gra nationality on the ground of residence abroad may violate Community law. I am perfectly aware that this is exclusively the case, in principle, if residence abroad was guaranteed by EC law. However, it should also be borne in mind that, more and more frequently, the European Court of Justice underscores the importance of European citizenship itself as a fundamental status. This may have consequences in that the possession of European citizenship is always protected in the case of residence within the territory of the Union 78 He refers to my earlier publications on this issue Jessurun d'Oliveira(1999), p. 407. Doubts about compatibility with European law may arise in the following case: a Belgian national acquires Netherlands nationality by naturalisation. As a result, he loses Belgian nationality. Later on it is discovered that he failed to inform the competent authorities of the Netherlands that at the time of theElectronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.3 (October 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 16 Treaty. He argues as follows: It has been put forward78 that it would be incompatible with Community law if one Member State were to rule that a national residing in one of the other Member States and having no other nationality should lose his nationality, for example, after having lived there for more than ten years. The party concerned would indeed, the argument runs, lose the protection of the EC Treaty, namely entitlement to the freedom of movement. Worse still, if he lost his Member State nationality he would lose his Union citizenship as well. There are two objections to this example. In the first place I submit that everything has been turned upside down. Whoever is a national of a Member State is a Union citizen, with all the rights and entitlements that result from that status. Whoever is not (or no longer) a national of a Member State is not (no longer) eligible for Union citizenship. A Union citizen is not robbed of the rights he or she is entitled to under the Treaty, but the grounds for his or her Union citizenship and the resulting rights are cancelled as the premise for Union citizenship is no longer fulfilled. Secondly, the position is rather timid. The implication of the standpoint that someone residing in a different Member State of the EC may not lose his or her nationality is that in the end all regulations concerning the loss of nationality are fundamentally forbidden under Community law, because they go hand in hand with the loss of Community rights. Should, for instance, Article 14 (2) of the Dutch Nationality Law then come to read: ‘[n]o loss of Dutch nationality in any case takes place whatsoever should someone become stateless or lose Union citizenship as a result’? I have to make clear first of all that Jessurun d’Oliveira did not sum up my arguments entirely correctly. After the words ‘having no other nationality’ the words ‘of another Member State’ should be added; this makes a vast difference. Secondly, I disagree with his first argument. The nationality involved would be lost merely because of residence abroad, which is allowed and even guaranteed under the EC Treaty. It is therefore the exercise of rights granted by Community law that leads to the loss of European citizenship. That, in my opinion, is not acceptable. His second argument is not at all convincing. I never wrote that a national of a Member State residing in another Member State might not lose his or her nationality. My argument was basically that residence abroad in another Member State, as the only ground for loss, is extremely problematic in view of Community law. Jessurun d’Oliveira79 also calls attention to the fact that not all nationals of a Member State residing in another Member State remain there as a result of residence permits granted under EC law. That is correct, and it is my reason for always emphasising that loss of nationality on the ground of residence abroad may violate Community law. I am perfectly aware that this is exclusively the case, in principle, if residence abroad was guaranteed by EC law. However, it should also be borne in mind that, more and more frequently, the European Court of Justice underscores the importance of European citizenship itself as a fundamental status. This may have consequences in that the possession of European citizenship is always protected in the case of residence within the territory of the Union.80 78 He refers to my earlier publications on this issue. 79 Jessurun d’Oliveira (1999), p. 407. 80 Doubts about compatibility with European law may arise in the following case: a Belgian national acquires Netherlands nationality by naturalisation. As a result, he loses Belgian nationality. Later on it is discovered that he failed to inform the competent authorities of the Netherlands that at the time of the