ElectronicjOurnalofcomparativeLa,vol.8.3(october2004),<http://www.ejcl.org/> had granted Greek nationality -and therefore European citizenship-to all Cypriots of Greek ethnicity Jessurun d'Oliveira has argued against the possibility that granting nationality without consulting the European Union may violate the obligation of solidarity between the Member States He sees the reunification of the two german States after the fall of the berlin wall and the increase in German nationals by approximately 18 million persons as an illustration of a Member States absolute autonomy in matters of nationality, in which the consent of the European Union is not required. I find this illustration far from convincing Because of the german declaration on nationality made in 1957, the entire population of the Democratic Republic of Germany already belonged to the group of persons that were German for Community purposes: the population of the Federal Republic of Germany a good example of the absolute autonomy of a Member State in nationality matters would have been the situation in which, conversely, the Federal Republic of Germany had deprived the population of the Democratic Republic of Germany of their German nationality without consulting the European Union. But that did not happen: Germany just maintained the position it had expressed more than 30 years before. Jessurun d' Oliveira continues: 62 Owing to the fact that neither Member States, nor the Commission, nor the Council or any other Community institution have called since 1957 for any revision or implementation-no matter ho spectacular-of the nationality law of Mem ber States, it appears that lack of solida rity with the Community in this area is not an issue. Or, in other words, historically speakingnationa lity law is an absolutely irrelevant category in the framework of the new Article 10. Mem ber States and Community institutions do not easily consider ask ing whether nationality laws of Member States are compatible with Community law. To date there has been no demand for information by the Mem ber States from the Commission or Council, and there is no question of there being any co-operative, consultative or informative obligations in the a bsence of any sign of activity by the Community institutions To my knowledge, it is true that the Commission or Council did not expressly request information of a Member State on nationality matters on the occasion of it amend ing nationality legislation. It seems to me, however, that in any case the Spanish treaties on dual nationality and the British declaration on nationality after the 1981 review of British nationality law were discussed with the European authorities. Furthermore, in a resolution on the occasion of the 1981 British declaration, the European Parliament stressed the desirability of some degree of harmonisation of nationality law 64 b)a second limitation of Member State competence in nationality matters could be observed if domestic rules on acquisition or loss of nationality violated public international law, especially fundamental rights guaranteed under international law. 65 Jessurun d'Oliveira(1999), pp 402, 403 Ibid., p. 405; compare also pp. 409, 410 Compare Perez Vera(1981), p 685:... es un aspecto del Derecho espanol de nacionalidad que pared despertar serias reservas en ciertos juristas communitarios que a bogarian porsu modificacion OJ1981,No.C260/10 Likewise Kotalakidis(2000), pp 312, 313; differently Kovar and Simon(1994),p. 291. Se (1996)Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.3 (October 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 13 - had granted Greek nationality - and therefore European citizenship - to all Cypriots of Greek ethnicity. Jessurun d’Oliveira61 has argued against the possibility that granting nationality without consulting the European Union may violate the obligation of solidarity between the Member States. He sees the reunification of the two German States after the fall of the Berlin wall and the increase in German nationals by approximately 18 million persons as an illustration of a Member State’s absolute autonomy in matters of nationality, in which the consent of the European Union is not required. I find this illustration far from convincing. Because of the German declaration on nationality made in 1957, the entire population of the Democratic Republic of Germany already belonged to the group of persons that were German for Community purposes: the population of the Federal Republic of Germany. A good example of the absolute autonomy of a Member State in nationality matters would have been the situation in which, conversely, the Federal Republic of Germany had deprived the population of the Democratic Republic of Germany of their German nationality without consulting the European Union. But that did not happen: Germany just maintained the position it had expressed more than 30 years before. Jessurun d’Oliveira continues:62 Owing to the fact that neither Member States, nor the Commission, nor the Council or any other Community institution have called since 1957 for any revision or implementation - no matter how spectacular - of the nationality law of Member States, it appears that lack of solida rity with the Community in this area is not an issue. Or, in other words, historically speaking nationality law is an absolutely irrelevant category in the framework of the new Article 10. Member States and Community institutions do not easily consider asking whether nationality laws of Member States are compatible with Community law. To date there has been no demand for information by the Member States from the Commission or Council, and there is no question of there being any co-operative, consultative or informative obligations in the absence of any sign of activity by the Community institutions. To my knowledge, it is true that the Commission or Council did not expressly request information of a Member State on nationality matters on the occasion of it amending nationality legislation. It seems to me, however, that in any case the Spanish treaties on dual nationality63 and the British declaration on nationality after the 1981 review of British nationality law were discussed with the European authorities. Furthermore, in a Resolution on the occasion of the 1981 British declaration, the European Parliament stressed the desirability of some degree of harmonisation of nationality law.64 b) A second limitation of Member State competence in nationality matters could be observed, if domestic rules on acquisition or loss of nationality violated public international law, especially fundamental rights guaranteed under international law.65 61 Jessurun d’Oliveira (1999), pp. 402, 403. 62 Ibid., p. 405; compare also pp. 409, 410. 63 Compare Pérez Vera (1981), p. 685: ‘. . . es un aspecto del Derecho español de nacionalidad que parece despertar serias reservas en ciertos juristas communitarios que abogarian por su modificacion.’ 64 OJ 1981, No. C 260/100. 65 Likewise Kotalakidis (2000), pp. 312, 313; differently Kovar and Simon (1994), p. 291. See also Hall (1996)