ECJ´'s New Role – Guardian of Open but not Socially Inclusive Europe?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2018.02.02.01Keywords:
Court of Justice of the European Union, welfare tourism, access to social assistance, third country nationals, family members, right of residence, Directive 2004/38, BrexitAbstract
The aim of the following article is to find whether the European Court of Justice has reacted in its recent rulings to the growing reluctance of many Europeans and their political representations towards quasi-automatic rights of migrating of European Union citizens to move to another Member State and enjoy there the benefits of social policy on equal footing with this country´s nationals. The result of the referendum held in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016 regarding the UK’s membership in the EU demonstrates the importance of the issue in question. The authors analyse recent case law of the European Court of Justice in comparison with its earlier case law regarding the access of Union citizens to social assistance and the status of third country nationals as family members of European Union citizens. The authors have come to the conclusion that so far, the European Court of Justice tightened the interpretation of the European Union law in force in the area of welfare tourists’ rights unlike in the case of economically active migrants. First, Martinez-Sala, Grzelczyk, Bidar, Trojani and other judgments are mentioned to remind the previous approach of the European Court of Justice, based on the principle of broad solidarity between Member States. Second, this approach is confronted with more recent case law, i. e. Dano, Alimanovic, Garcia-Nieto, Commission against the United Kingdom. In those cases, the court did not require the host Member States to recognize the value of EU citizenship as an individual's “fundamental status” nor to show a degree of solidarity. The court stood for the uncomplicated and rigorous application of Directive 2004/38. When it comes to third country nationals as family members of Union citizens, their status it is not only confirmed but even extended. The authors analyse briefly earlier case law of the European Court of Justice, namely the Singh, O. and B., Metock, Zambrano and Dereci cases. These judgments are characteristic of broad interpretation of Directive 2004/38 and provisions of the Treaty on EU citizenship in favour of the family members. Protection of fundamental rights also plays an important part. Other than in the case of social tourism, there has been no change in the approach of the European Court of Justice. On the contrary, in Marín, Chavez-Vilchez, Lounes or Coman judgments, the European Court of Justice confirms its previous line of reasoning and further develops it. Nevertheless, the authors hold the view that the European Court of Justice should more carefully balance and try to reconcile free movement rights, fundamental rights, as well as the sovereign rights of Member States in order to contribute to the prevention of European disintegration.
Downloads
References
Blauberger, M. & Schmidt, S. K. (2017) Free movement, the welfare state, and the European Union´s over-constitutionalization: Administering contradictions. Public Administration, 95, 437-439.
Blauberger, M., Heindlmaier, A., Kramer, D., Sindbjerg Martinsen D., Schenk A., Sampson Thierry, J., Werner, B. (February 13, 2018). ECJ Judges Read the Morning Papers - Explaining the Turnaround of European Citizenship Jurisprudence. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3123003.
Case C-139/85 R. H. Kempf v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie. ECLI:EU:C:1986:223.
Case C-370/90 The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal a Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for Home Department. ECLI:EU:C:1992:296.
Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern. ECLI:EU:C:1998:217.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve. ECLI:EU:C:2001:458.
Case C-389/99 Sulo Rundgren. ECLI:EU:C:2001:264.
Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department. ECLI:EU:C:2002:434.
Case C-109/01 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich. ECLI:EU:C:2003:491.
Case C-160/02 Friedrich Skalka v. Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft. ECLI:EU:C:2004:269.
Case C-456/02 Michel Trojani v. Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS). ECLI:EU:C:2004:488.
Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v. London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills. ECLI:EU:C:2005:169.
Case C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v. Office national de l'emploi. ECLI:EU:C:2006:491.
Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. ECLI:EU:C:2008:449.
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern. ECLI:EU:C:2010:104.
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm). ECLI:EU:C:2011:124.
Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department. ECLI:EU:C:2011:277.
Case C-542/09 Commission v. Netherlands. ECLI:EU:C:2012:346
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v Bundesministerium für Inneres. ECLI:EU:C:2011:734.
Case C-140/12 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v. Peter Brey. ECLI:EU:C:2013:565.
Case C 456/12 O. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B. ECLI:EU:C:2014:135.
Case C 333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig. ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358.
Case C 165/14 Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado. ECLI:EU:C:2016:675.
Case C-67/14 Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v. Nazifa Alimanovic and others. EU:C:2015:935.
Case C-299/14 Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v. Jovanna García-Nieto and others. EU:C:2016:114.
Case C-308/14 European Commission v. UK. EU:C:2016:436.
Case C 133/15 H. C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others. ECLI:EU:C:2017:354.
Case C-238/15 Maria do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga and other v. Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. ECLI:EU:C:2016:949.
Case C-165/16 Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department. ECLI:EU:C:2017:862.
Case C-442/16 Florea Gusa v. Minister for Social Protection and others. ECLI:EU:C:2017:1004.
Case C-449/16 Kerly del Rosario Martines Silva v. Instituo nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPs) and Comune di Genova. ECLI:EU:C:2017:485.
Case C-551/16, J. Klein Schiphorst v. Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen. ECLI:EU:C:2018:200.
Case C-673/16 Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne. ECLI:EU:C:2018:385.
Case C-89/17 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger. ECLI:EU:C:2018:570.
Connolly, K. (October 12, 2016). German government approves strict limits on EU migrants claiming benefits. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/12/german-government-approves-bill-to-stop-eu-migrants-claiming-benefits.
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
Craig, P. (2016). Brexit: A Drama in Six Acts. European Law Review, 45, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, 1-42.
Davies, G. (2016). Migrant Citizens and Social Assistance: Trying to be Reasonable about Self-Sufficiency. Research Paper in Law, (2), 1-30.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
European Council meeting (18-19 February 2016) – Conclusions. EUCO 1/16, Annex I Section D.
Fernandes, S. (2016) Access to Social Benefi ts for EU Mobile Citizens: “Tourism” or Myth?. Policy Paper, 168, 1-26.
Heindlmaier, A. & Blauberger, M. (2017). Enter at your own risk: free movement of EU citizens in practice. West European Politics, 40(6), 1198-1217.
Kochenov, D. (2011). A Real European Citizenship: A New Jurisdiction Test: A Novel Chapter in the Development of the Union in Europe. Columbia Journal of European Law, 18, 55-109.
Král, R. (2012). Volný pohyb unijních pracovníků a přistěhovalectví jejich rodinných příslušníků ze třetích zemí. In: Král, R. et al. Volný pohyb pracovníků v EU v kontextu skončení přechodných opatření. Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Právnická fakulta.
Kramer, D. (March 9, 2016). Short-term Residence, Social Benefi ts and the Family; an Analysis of Case C-299/14 (García-Nieto and others). European Law Blog. Retrieved from: https://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/03/09/short-term-residence-social-benefits-and-the-family-ananalysis-of-case-c-29914-garcia-nieto-and-others/.
Kramer, D., Sampson Thierry, J. & van Hooren, F. (2018). Responding to free movement: quarantining mobile union citizens in European welfare states. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(10), 501-521.
Lanceiro, R. (2017). Dano and Alimanovic: the recent evolution of CJEU caselaw on EU citizenship and cross-border access to social benefits. UNIO - EU Law Journal, 3(1), 63-77.
Lenaerts, K. (2015). EU citizenship and the European Court of Justice s ‘stone-by-stone’ approach. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(1), 1-10.
Loekegaard, M. & Poulsen, L. (March 28, 2018). Let us make freedom of movement fair. Euractiv. Retrieved from <https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/opinion/let-us-make-freedom-of-movement-fair/>.
Menghi, M. & Quéré, J. (2016). Free movement of Europeans. Taking stock of Misunderstood Rights. Institute Jacques Delors Studies Report, 112, 1-87.
Munta, M. (2018). ECJ´s Approach to EU Migrant´s Social Benefit Claims: Tracing Judicial Influence on German Social Policy. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 25(1), 1-23.
O´Brian, C. (June 16, 2016). Don’t think of the children! CJEU approves automatic exclusions from family benefits in Case C-308/14 Commission v UK. EU Law Analysis - Expert insight into EU law developments. Retrieved from https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/06/dont-think-ofchildren-cjeu-approves.html.
Peers, S. (May 10, 2017). Think of the children: the ECJ clarifies the status of non-EU parents of EU citizen children living in their own Member State. EU Law Analysis - Expert insight into EU law developments. Retrieved from: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/05/think-ofchildren-ecj-clarifies-status.html.
Polak, P. R. (2018). A Commentary on the Lounes Case and the Protection of EU Citizen’s rights postBrexit. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 44, 190-203.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.
Sánchez, S. I. (2014). Fundamental Rights and Citizenship of the Union at a Crossroads: A Promising Alliance or a Dangerous Liaison?. European Law Journal, 20(4), 464–481.
Scheu, H. C. (2009). Právní postavení přistěhovalců v mezinárodním a evropském právu. Správní právo, 3, 129-163.
Schiek, D. (October 5, 2015). A spectacular turnaround on EU citizens’ benefits by the ECJ. QPOL – Policy engagement at Queen’s. Retrieved from http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/eu-citizens-and-the-ecj/.
Shuibhne, N. N. (2017). Integrating Union Citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In: Thym, D. (Ed.) Questioning EU Citizenship: Judges and the Limits of Free Movement and Solidarity in the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Šmejkal, V. (2016). Saving EU and its Welfare States Through Disincentives to Migration? On a recent CJEU Case Law Limiting the Access of EU Migrants to Social Assistance. Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law, 7, 154-170.
Šmejkal, V., Šaroch, S. & Svoboda, P. (2016). European Union as a Highly Competitive Social Market Economy. Legal and Economic Analysis. Beroun: RW&W Science & New Media.
Tryfonidou, A. (June 19, 2018). Free Movement of Same-Sex Spouses within the EU: The ECJ’s Coman Judgment. European Law Blog. Retrieved from: https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/06/19/free-movement-of-same-sex-spouses-within-the-eu-the-ecjs-coman-judgment/.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Magdaléna Svobodová, Václav Šmejkal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. License to all its content published from 2023 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to all its content published from 2017 to 2022.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
