Une citoyenneté européenne à deux vitesses ? par Lionel Zevounou, juriste #CycleMarcBloch

Summary of main points (Lionel Zevounou – “Une citoyenneté européenne à deux vitesses ?”)

Aim of the talk

Lionel Zevounou explains how law can produce “symbolic” borders that become highly concrete—with real effects on the lives of EU citizens. He argues that this contributes to a “two-speed” European citizenship, where protections differ depending on how belonging is legally defined.

European legal framework and the “democratic deficit”

He contends that the EU is shaped largely through legal categories and jurisprudence (e.g., primacy, direct effect) that most people understand poorly. This creates a perceived political and democratic gap.

To address this, he calls for greater interdisciplinary dialogue with:

• sociology
• anthropology
• history

…to better understand law’s social effects.

Europe under pressure (anti-immigration and far-right politics)

Zevounou links recent developments in EU asylum and migration policy, alongside the growing prominence of far-right parties, to pressure for changes in how migration and equality are legally reasoned.

He highlights in particular:

• Funding disparities between agencies (e.g., Frontex vs the Fundamental Rights Agency) as an emblematic contrast between enforcement and fundamental-rights protection
• A Danish legislative trend described as a “laboratory” for ethno-nationalist policy

The Danish “ghetto package” and the “Western / non-Western” split

Zevounou’s analysis centers on a Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) case concerning Danish housing law.

Denmark created an administrative category of “non-Westerners” (treated as a statistical/administrative classification) and uses it to justify administrative termination of housing leases in designated areas framed as “ghetto” or “parallel society” zones.

The stated policy goal is to “eradicate ghettos by 2030.” Zevounou emphasizes that this involves more than evictions: it includes intensified controls across housing, education, and even criminal-law penalties, as part of a broader legislative strategy.

Key legal issues before the CJEU

National courts asked, in essence:

1. Whether the “non-Westerners” category can be treated as an ethnic group under the EU Racial Equality Directive (“race directive”).
2. Whether the Danish measure amounts to direct or indirect discrimination.

How the CJEU ruled (as described by Zevounou)

According to the speaker:

• The CJEU moved the core inquiry away from discrimination under the Racial Equality Directive toward the fundamental right to respect for the home.
• Zevounou claims the Court used a formal, literal approach to the “non-Westerners” definition—treating it as a list of nationalities rather than as an ethnic marker—and therefore avoided directly classifying the policy as racist or ethnically discriminatory.
• He also argues that the Court required national courts to follow specific evidentiary steps (including how treatment differences align with ethnic criteria and the way comparisons are made), thereby weakening the practical force of the racial-equality analysis.

Zevounou’s critique

Conceptual critique of “race/ethnicity” handling

Zevounou argues that the Advocate General’s and the Court’s reasoning depends on a narrow, cautious, and arguably inconsistent understanding of “race.” He criticizes the rejection of an anti-racist framework that could treat “race” as a socially constructed analytical category.

Overreliance on abstract categories

He claims the Court (and Advocate General) did not sufficiently consider the historical and social context of the Danish classification and its effects, including:

• the assumption that minorities will “self-segregate”
• the framing of “ghettoization” as a matter of culture/loyalty, rather than a product of inequality

Neglect of the full “package” effect

He stresses the CJEU did not fully engage with the broader “ghetto package” (all measures taken together), which he views as essential for understanding discrimination’s real-life consequences.

Historical analogy and political stakes

Zevounou compares the logic of distinguishing “true members” of the nation through loyalty/assimilation to older European practices of exclusion. His warning: legal reasoning can reproduce older exclusionary logics inside modern citizenship regimes.

Social-science critique of legal formalism

Drawing on sociology/history (including Abdelmalek Sayad), Zevounou argues that legal categories and state suspicion create circular reinforcement between legal status and social disadvantage. In that view, discrimination is not merely symbolic—it is materially produced.

Discussion / Q&A themes

Audience questions explored whether international law (including anti-racism conventions) or courts such as the ECHR could constrain Denmark more effectively, and Zevounou described limits and gaps between legal principles and real outcomes.

He also notes:

• He would have preferred a stronger CJEU judgment explicitly recognizing illegality in discrimination terms.
• He suggests the Court avoided precedent-like outcomes due to political/legal constraints and the risks of setting binding standards.
• Some Danish actors already interpret the ruling as a partial victory, implying continued room for restrictive national policy choices.

Bottom line

Zevounou argues that the CJEU’s approach in the Danish case contributes to unequal protection within EU citizenship by addressing ethnically discriminatory policies through formal category management and alternative legal pathways (notably through home-right framing) rather than confronting the anti-racist discrimination question directly.

He insists that law’s social effects must be studied historically and sociologically, not only doctrinally—otherwise, “borders” become institutionalized across housing, belonging, and rights.

Presenters / contributors mentioned

Main and contextual speakers

• Lionel Zevounou (main speaker)
• Romain (host/moderator; thanked and included in intro)
• Michel Lamont (Harvard sociologist; referenced from a prior conference)
• Christelle Avril (sociologist; mentioned as covering an earlier session)
• Camich Mol (lecture on geographical borders; mentioned)
• Francis Niamjo (speaker for the 45th Markblock conference; announced)
• Pascal Bartelémi (saluted/mentioned by the host)

Legal figures referenced

• Tamara Capeta (Advocate General; referenced for her conclusions)
• Frederiksen (Danish prime minister; referenced in context of asylum reform completion)
• Giorgia Meloni (Italian prime minister; referenced in an alliance context)

Q&A / discussion participants and other referenced works

• Jean‑Frédéric (speaker responding on history/welfare state)
• Riner (respondent/commenter)
• Mathine (lawyer colleague; asked questions)
• Justin Tribilion (work mentioned regarding the Paris ring road)
• Gérard Noiriel (historian referenced)
• George Burdau (jurist referenced)
• Abdelmalek Sayad (sociologist referenced)
• Daniel Lochac (referenced via “The Souvichi Doctrine, or the Misadventures of Legal Positivism”)
• Adrien Vermeule (referenced)
• Daniel Achac (referenced in discussion)
• UN representatives (mentioned as opposing the Danish/EU approach)
• RATP (mentioned anecdotally)
• Biao (case referenced, ECHR decision)

Comparative / international legal references

• ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)
• ICC (International Criminal Court; mentioned as a question)
• Voting Rights Act / U.S. Supreme Court (referenced for comparative reasoning)