ElectronicJournalofcomparativeLaw,vol.8.3(october2004),chttp://www.ejcl.org/> declaration on nationality attached to the maastricht Treaty. These words obviously do not exclude the possibility that determination of nationals for Community purposes deviates from the general definition of nationals.48 From this perspective, it is likely that the Netherlands can exclude nationals born abroad from European citizenship without violating the Treaty Some doubt about full autonomy in matters of national ity also arises from read ing the decision of the European Court of Justice of 1992, in Michelleti 49 The Court decided that Spain had to accept that Mario Vincente Micheletti, who had been born in Argentina as the son of an Italian father, an Argentinean national through naturalisation, was to be regarded as an Italian for Community purposes, because of the Italian interpretation of the content of an Italian-Argentinean treaty on dual citizenship, which in fact was a copy of the Spanish Argentinean treaty on dual citizenship. Under similar circumstances, based on its treaty with Argentina, Spain would have concluded that a child of an originally Spanish parent who had acquired Argentinean nationality through naturalisation would not qualify as a Spanish national for Community purposes. The European Court of Justice stressed respect for Community law when regulating and interpreting the nationality law of the State involved The definition of the conditions of acquisition and loss of nationality is, in conform ity with intemational law, within the competence of each Member State, which competence must be exercised with due regard to Com munity law. 50 An essential question is why the Court emphasised that this competence had to be exercised with due regard to Community law, although, thus far, the European Union has not adopted likely that such a Regulation or Directive will be prepared in the near future. 3, hot ver of any Regulation or Directive on nationality law. 5I In view of the declaration by the Head State or Govemment referred to above, attached to the Maastricht Treaty 52 it is Nevertheless, it is my view that the nationality legislation of a Member State may conceivably violate general principles of Community law. 4 This may be the case when See also Evans(1998), with reference to Case T 230/94 Frederick Farrugia v EC Commission delco. Ecj 7 July 1992, Case 369/90, ECR 19921-4258, Mario Vincente Micheletti andothers/delegacion del Gobierno en Cantabria. On this case, see Borras Rodriguez(1993); Carracosa, (1994); De Groot(1992); Espinar Vicente(1994): Iglesias Buhigues(1993), Jessurun d' Oliveira(1993), pp 627 ff, Ruzie 1993): Sebastien(1993), pp. 1263-1269 On the reaction of the Spanish courts, see De Groot(1998a) See also ecj 1 1 November 1999. Case 179/98.ECrl-7955 in re Fatna Mesba No 29 The only attempt to exert some influence on nationality matters was a resolution of the European Nationality Act 1981, it was concluded that a certa in degree of harmonisation of nationality law should be Parliament of 18 September 1981, 0J1981 C 260/100, where, on the occasion of a debate regarding the British promoted so as to avoid that persons were bom stateless within the territory of the Community See also the Declaration of the European Council in December 1992,0J 1992C 348/1 The autonomy of Mem ber States in nationality matters was recently underlined in a written ver Commissioner G. Verheugen to a written question posed by a Member of the European Parliament on the position of stateless persons in the candidate Member State Slovenia; E-164103 See also Kotalakidis(2000), p. 310:... die grenzen der rechtmabigkeit iner nationalen Staatsangehorigkeitsregelung, bzw. ihre Rechtswirkungen im Hinblick auf die Unionsburgerschaft [konnenElectronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.3 (October 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 11 declaration on nationality attached to the Maastricht Treaty. These words obviously do not exclude the possibility that determination of nationals for Community purposes deviates from the general definition of ‘nationals’.48 From this perspective, it is likely that the Netherlands can exclude nationals born abroad from European citizenship without violating the Treaty. Some doubt about full autonomy in matters of nationality also arises from reading the decision of the European Court of Justice of 1992, in Michelleti. 49 The Court decided that Spain had to accept that Mario Vincente Micheletti, who had been born in Argentina as the son of an Italian father, an Argentinean national through naturalisation, was to be regarded as an Italian for Community purposes, because of the Italian interpretation of the content of an Italian–Argentinean treaty on dual citizenship, which in fact was a copy of the Spanish– Argentinean treaty on dual citizenship. Under similar circumstances, based on its treaty with Argentina, Spain would have concluded that a child of an originally Spanish parent who had acquired Argentinean nationality through naturalisation would not qualify as a Spanish national for Community purposes. The European Court of Justice stressed respect for Community law when regulating and interpreting the nationality law of the State involved: The definition of the conditions of acquisition and loss of nationality is, in conformity with international law, within the competence of each Member State, which competence must be exercised with due regard to Community law.50 An essential question is why the Court emphasised that this competence had to be exercised with due regard to Community law, although, thus far, the European Union has not adopted any Regulation or Directive on nationality law.51 In view of the declaration by the Heads of State or Government referred to above, attached to the Maastricht Treaty,52 it is not very likely that such a Regulation or Directive will be prepared in the near future.53 Nevertheless, it is my view that the nationality legislation of a Member State may conceivably violate general principles of Community law.54 This may be the case when 48 See also Evans (1998), with reference to Case T 230/94 Frederick Farrugia v. EC Commission. 49 ECJ 7 July 1992, Case 369/90, ECR 1992 I-4258, Mario Vincente Micheletti and others/Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria. On this case, see Borras Rodriguez (1993); Carracosa, (1994); De Groot (1992); Espinar Vicente (1994); Iglesias Buhigues (1993); Jessurun d’Oliveira (1993), pp. 627 ff.; Ruzié 1993); Sebastien (1993), pp. 1263-1269. On the reaction of the Spanish courts, see De Groot (1998a). 50 See also ECJ 11 November 1999, Case 179/98. ECR I-7955, in re Fatna Mesba, No. 29. 51 The only attempt to exert some influence on nationality matters was a resolution of the European Parliament of 18 September 1981, OJ 1981 C 260/100, where, on the occasion of a debate regarding the British Nationality Act 1981, it was concluded that a certain degree of harmonisation of nationality law should be promoted so as to avoid that persons were born stateless within the territory of the Community. 52 See also the Declaration of the European Council in December 1992, OJ 1992 C 348/1. 53 The autonomy of Member States in nationality matters was recently underlined in a written answer by Commissioner G. Verheugen to a written question posed by a Member of the European Parliament on the position of stateless persons in the candidate Member State Slovenia; E-1641/03. 54 See also Kotalakidis (2000), p. 310: ‘. . . die Grenzen der Rechtmäßigkeit einer nationalen Staatsangehörigkeitsregelung, bzw. ihre Rechtswirkungen im Hinblick auf die Unionsbürgerschaft [können]