Brussels, 12/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - Economically inactive EU citizens who go to another member state solely in order to obtain social assistance may be excluded from certain social benefits. This is effectively the thrust of the ruling by the European Court of Justice (C-333/13) on Tuesday 11 November on a subject that has provoked a lot of heated political feeling in countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom. The ruling was welcomed by the British Prime Minister, as well as by the left (S&D) and right (EPP) at the European Parliament.
The main case involved. The case put forward to the Court was rather particular insofar as it provided a prototype of all the evils often attributed to a certain category of European migrant who seeks to benefit from or “exploit” a social welfare protection system that pays better in another member state other than the one from which they are originally from. The case in question involved a Romanian national living in Germany who wanted to benefit from basic social assistance reserved for jobseekers. The person in question had no qualifications or demonstrated any sign of wishing to work or had worked previously in her life. The Leipzig local authorities refused to pay her basic social assistance, as allowed under German legislation.
Legal framework. The European courts were therefore requested to rule on the delicate question of whether European citizens can be treated differently by a member state on the basis of their nationality. This differentiated treatment is allowed under the “Citizen of the Union” directive (2004/38/EC) if nationals from another member state living in a different member state from where they are from, do not respect certain conditions. The host member state is not obliged to grant social assistance during the first three months of residence. Where the period of residence is longer than three months but less than five years, the economically inactive persons from another member state must have sufficient resources of their own to have the right of residency.
Court's decision. According to the interpretation of this directive proposed by the Court, which coincides with the main guidelines of the Advocate General's conclusions (EUROPE 11083), the European legislator sought to prevent inactive European citizens or those without their own resources using the social protection system of a host member state to fund their means of subsistence. This means that the national authorities must have the right to refuse the granting of social benefits to ensure that inactive nationals do not become, “an unreasonable cost to the social assistance system of the host member state”. The Court explained that each case had to be examined on its own merits and the kind of social benefit requested cannot be taken into account. As soon as a foreign national does not have the right of residency, under the directive, because he is not working or does not have sufficient resources, he cannot benefit from the principle of non-discrimination included in this directive or through the regulation on the coordination of social security systems (No. 883/2004). The Court also pointed out that this regulation does not affect the conditions for granting social benefits in non-contributory cases (such as in the current case) and that member states would therefore be free to set out the conditions for accessing these benefits themselves. The judges pointed out that the provisions in the EU's charter of fundamental rights do not change this situation at all.
Responses from London and Brussels. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, did not attempt to hide his satisfaction with the decision and described it as, “simple common sense”. Speaking on the BBC, he said that living and working in another country should be an absolute right but that there should be rules on limiting benefits and that this ruling was good news. The reaction from the European Parliament was less ecstatic with the ruling from the European Court of Justice but it was greeted in a positive way, overall and with a certain amount of relief. The president of the EPP group, Manfred Weber (Germany) said, “this ruling sends out a clear message: member states have different legal tools available to defend their welfare systems against abuse, whilst ensuring that any breach of the freedom of movement for citizens, as a founding principle of the European Union, is avoided”. In a press release, the Social Democrats expressed themselves in a similar vein, “the decision helps clarify the rules and provides security and guidelines to the local authorities in similar cases. Abuse of the system can be avoided and it is now clear that individual circumstances have to be taken into account”. (JK)