Brussels, 01/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - Persons under subsidiary protection status may be obliged by a member state to reside in a place specified by the authorities of that state, but only in order to promote integration, and not in order to secure a better share-out of the financial burden these persons represent.
This is the judgment returned by the Court of Justice of the EU on Tuesday 1 March, in two joined cases (C-443/14 and C-444/14) involving Syrians who were granted subsidiary protection in Germany, but which came with a residence permit obliging them to reside in a specific place. Subsidiary protection is available to third-country nationals who risk their lives if they remain in their country of origin, but are not entitled to claim refugee status. In both cases, the persons in question challenged the legality of this residence obligation, invoking Directive 2011/95/EU, which gives the beneficiaries of this status the right to travel freely and to choose their own place of residence on the territory of the host member state.
German law provides for a residence condition for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in receipt of social benefits. The aim of this system is twofold: to ensure a balanced distribution of the financial burden (between different Länder, for instance) and to facilitate the integration of these persons into German society. The Federal Administrative Court of Germany approached the Court of Justice to ask whether this system is compatible with EU law, with particular reference to the above-mentioned directive.
The European judges ultimately agreed with the reasoning recently proposed by the Advocate General (EUROPE 11404). The result of this is that the German system constitutes a restriction to the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Directive. However, this restriction appears legitimate as long as it can be proven that the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection face more integration difficulties than other persons who are not EU citizens and who are living legally in Germany and also receiving social benefit. These are the only grounds on which the system can be justified, as the Court opposes residency conditions simply for the purposes of spreading the financial burden.
The verdict has the merit of clarifying that a residency condition may be imposed, which is an important element in preventing secondary movements, the European Commission commented on Tuesday. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)