Citizenship – Seminar 2 Presentation

8/2/2019 Citizenship Seminar 2 Presentation

1/13

The Extension of Citizenship Rights into Welfare and

Social Benefits


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


8/13

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Documents

Citizenship – Seminar 2 Presentation