Free movement of citizens and social benefits Flashcards
Grzelczyk (2001), on the evolution of access of citizens to social benefits
French national was studying and working in Belgium and applied for basic welfare benefit, which was denied because he was a EU citizen enrolled as a student, and thus would have to demonstrate sufficient resources. Plus, as a student, Belgium authorities said he could not have the residence as a worker. The court held that the decision is too mechanical, and an individual assessment must be made to consider the other facts. A certain degree of FINANCIAL SOLIDARITY is acceptable. (this was the expansionary phase)
Brey (2013), on the evolution of access to social benefits
A German couple was dependent on social benefits in Germany, and when they moved to Austria they applied to get a rent social benefit there, which was denied on grounds that they were not leagally residents (art 7 dir. 2004/38 - they did not prove sufficient resources to stay more than 3 months). Austrian authorities said they would be a burden to the government. The court held that MS cannot automatically deny certain benefits to visitants on the grounds they would be a burden just because they are not working. Personal circumstances would have to be taken into consideration, and the government would have to specify the burden if the benefit was to be granted. (this is the restrictive phase, and MS started complaining about the “social tourism” at their expense)
Dano (2014), on the evolution of access to social benefits
Romanian mother and son were living in Germany, the son was born in Germany. She was not working nor seeking for a job, but she was receiving a child assistance benefit. When she applied for another social benefit, it was denied on the grounds that she would be a burden to the State. The courte held that the main purpose of the Directive 2004/38 was to prevent unreasable burdens to the State, and the MS has the right to deny social benefits to innactive EU citizens who move to the MS with the main objective of being benefited by social allowances. Individual assistance was still required, but the government was not required to specify the burden anymore (stricter).
Alimanovic (2015), on the access of social benefits
Swedish woman in Germany where she worked for 11 months, then applied for long-term unemployment allowance, which was refused. Courts followed Dano, and was even stricter. It considered the unemployment allowance a social benefit, making the residence a requirement to access the benefit. It did not required the individual assessmente, like in the previous cases, stating that the Directive is already pretty clear with the maintenance of a worker’s status. Plus, the MS did not have to demonstrate the burden it would cause.
S (2022), on access to social benefits
EU citizen living in Germany who got family allowance rejected on the grounds that she was not employed in the first 3 months there. The court held that art.24 (2) of dir. 2004/38 did not apply because it does not deal with family benefits. But regulation 883/2004 deal with it, and the MS was treating non-nationals less favourably then national, thus constituting direct discrimination (art. 4 of the regulation).
