citizenship – seminar 2 presentation
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
1/13
The Extension of Citizenship Rights into Welfare and
Social Benefits
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
2/13
Recent ECJ judgments which have arisen under the
citizenship provisions are not just concerned with the
scope and meaning of the term citizenship but
evidence an assertive approach by which the ECJ has
upheld welfare and social benefits, not just through
its interpretation of EC law but also by reference
to the ECHR.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
3/13
The case concerned a Spanish woman, resident inGermany, unemployed and claiming a German child-raisingallowance. However, because she did not possess a validresidence permit at that time, the authorities refused her
request under the German social security law. The ECJ did not agree with this limiting condition upon
access to child allowance and by using Articles 17 and 18EC Treaty on EU citizenship, in conjunction with article 12EC Treaty on non-discrimination, extend the protection
against discrimination based on nationality to every citizenof the Union, and put her under protection of Communitylaw.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
4/13
In conclusion, a citizen of the European Union lawfully
resident in the territory of the host Member State, can rely
on Article 18 TFEU in all situations which fall within the
scope ratione materiae of Community law, including the
situation where that Member State delays or refuses togrant a benefit that is provided to all persons lawfully
resident in the territory of that State on the ground that
the claimant is not in possession of a document which
nationals of that same State are not required to have andthe issue of which may be delayed or refused by the
authorities of that State.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
5/13
This case is important because, by including the
situation of Mrs. Martinez Sala within the scope of
application of the EC Treaty, the ECJ enlarged that
scope in two respects. Firstly, the simple fact that Mrs.
Sala was a Union citizen lawfully residing in another
Member State was enough for her to fall under the
scope of application of the EC Treaty. Secondly, the ECJ
ruled that a benefit previously granted only to workers
should also be granted to a person other than a
worker.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
6/13
In Case C-138/02, Collins v Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions, Collins entered the UK in 1998 on an Irish passport
to seek work.
He claimed an income-based jobseekers allowance on the
strength of ten months part-time work he had undertaken asan American citizen from 1980 to 1981.
The UK authorities refused the benefit on the grounds that he
was not habitually resident in the UK. Collins claimed that this
was discrimination as nationals were advantaged byautomatically satisfying the time period required whereas
other Community nationals would have to fulfil this extra
requirement
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
7/13
The ECJ held that it was permissible for member
states to must require that there be a genuine link
between the work seeker and the state for the
purposes of claiming a work seekers allowance.
There was indirect discrimination in that nationals
could far more easily establish this link but, for the
reasons given by the UK, it was objectively justified
as thejob seekers allowance was designed to reducenational unemployment for those living long term in
the UK
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
8/13
The link requirement was confirmed in the nextcase which though also confirms that, whereappropriate, welfare rights can be claimed by EUcitizens.
In Case C-256/04 Ioannidis, a Greek national spentthree years in Belgium obtaining a graduatediploma followed by a training course in France.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
9/13
On his return to Belgium to look for work, he claimed a tide-over allowance
This was refused on the grounds that he had not competed
secondary education in Belgium or pursued education of t he
same level in another member state. Nor was he the dependant child of a migrant worker residing
in Belgium. thee ECJ held that Ioannidis fell within the scope
of Art 39 whilst seeking work and that according to the
citizenship provisions of the Treaty, under certainconditions.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
10/13
Financial assistance cannot be denied to
Union citizens. In line with the Collins case,
the ECJ acknowledged that a link with the
employment market could be required, butthe fact that Ioannidis had completed a
diploma in Belgium had already provided such
a link.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
11/13
Whilst Art 18 does guarantee free movement of EU citizens,when it comes to claiming benefits, in some circumstances aresidence requirement may be objectively justified on thegrounds of public interest.
In case C-406/04 De Cuyper, a Belgian national claimedunemployment benefits but moved to France whilstcontinuing to claim.
Once that information was revealed to the authorities hisclaim was denied on the grounds that he was not inresidence.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
12/13
The ECJ held that the requirement to reside in Belgium
whilst claiming was contrary to Art 18 but that Art 18
breaches can be objectively justified.
In this case, the public interest of being able to verify
and monitor the right to benefit, which would be very
difficult or impossible to do if the claimant was not in
the country, was held to be proportionate.
-
8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation
13/13
There is a danger that there may be an over-expansiveinterpretation of EC law that may now mean that EU citizens
who have established lawful residence in a host state will
have equal rights to the full spectrum of contributory and
non-contributory social benefits However, now that the opinion of the Advocate General in the
Collins case has been taken up by the ECJ and advanced in
subsequent cases of Ioannidis and De Cuyper, the fears
expressed seem to have been answered. The requirement ofa sufficiently close connection to the state is therefore the
way of restricting or indeed preventing this danger