Brussels, 06/10/2015 (Agence Europe) - Member states must not force the beneficiaries of international protection to live in a specific location in order to ensure a balanced division of the social welfare burden, as currently occurs in Germany. Member states must not restrict refugees' right to freely choose where they live apart from in concrete cases on serious grounds of migration and integration policy.
This was the conclusion reached by European Court of Justice judge Pedro Cruz Villalón on Tuesday 6 October in combined cases C-443/14 and C-444/14 on Syrians required by the civil service to live in specific locations.
Under a German law, when beneficiaries of international protection receive welfare aid, the residence permit granted for humanitarian, political or related reasons must contain the requirement to live in a specific area (the 'residence requirement') in order to avoid a disproportionate financial burden on specific Länder and municipalities, with the aim of facilitating the integration of the refugees concerned and avoiding integration and social segregation problems. In 2008, a German court ruled that this residence requirement should apply only to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection rather than refugees if it is justified due to the burden they place on the social security system.
The Advocate General says a rule such as this is a restriction on the free movement that is guaranteed by EU law (Directive 2011/95/EU) for the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection or refugees within a host member state, on a par with other non-EU nationals. He points out that the freedom of circulation cannot be separated from the freedom to choose one's place of residence.
While the restriction's aims are legitimate, they are nevertheless disproportionate, given that the regulation distinguishes between refugees and the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and also because the very principle of a residence requirement cannot be justified by the need to ensure a better spread of the financial burden. There are other measures that are less restrictive on the freedom of circulation, such as a mechanism for compensation and redistributing budget resources to even out imbalances.
As for the argument that the residence requirement could be justified for migration or integration policy reasons, the Advocate General says this is compatible with EU law only if there are sufficient motives connected with concrete cases (social tension that could lead to public order offences, for example). The German court should, however, verify whether other policies could be implemented, such as a dispersion policy for access to housing. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)