Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:11:14.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timeo Danones et dona petentes

European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 11 November 2014, Case C-333/13, Elisabeta and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2015

Dominik Düsterhaus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

EU citizenshipSocial security
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 121 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Legal secretary, Court of Justice of the European Union. All views are personal to the author who has not been involved in any of the cases addressed. Thanks go to the anonymous reviewers of EuConst.

References

1 On the interrelationship of both see notably Editorial Comments, ‘The free movement of persons in the European Union: Salvaging the dream while explaining the nightmare’, 51 CMLRev (2014) p. 729-740.

2 The Court was first asked to interpret what is now Art. 21 TFEU in Case C-193/94, Skanavi [1996] ECR I-943.

3 This provision had already been incidentally considered by the Court in ECJ 4 June 2009, Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08, Vatsouras and Koupatantze, in the course of examining the validity of Art. 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. See on this judgment Fahey, Elaine, ‘Interpretive legitimacy and the distinction between “social assistance” and “work seekers allowance”’, 34 ELRev (2009) p. 933Google Scholar.

4 § 7(1)(2) Nr. 2 of Book II of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II).

5 With regard to the ‘right to reside test’ applied by the UK, Case C-308/14 Commission v UK is currently pending before the Court. This test requires economically active persons from other member states to have acquired permanent residence in order to claim benefits falling within the scope of Regulation 883/2004 and social advantages under Regulation 492/2011. See in detail Minderhoud, P., ‘Directive 2004/38 on Access to Social Assistance Benefits’ in E. Guild et al. (eds), The reconceptualization of European Union citizenship (Brill Nijhoff 2014) p. 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 219 ff.

6 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 (OJ L 158, p. 77, with corrigendum OJ L 229, p. 35).

7 Regulation No 883/2004 of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166, p. 1.

8 See Düsterhaus, D., ‘Union Citizenship after Ruiz Zambrano or How Many Rights are there in a Status’, in J. Diez-Hochleitner Rodríguez et al. (eds.), Últimas tendencias en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (Kluwer La ley 2012) p. 461Google Scholar at p. 462.

9 ECJ 20 September 2001, Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk.

10 ECJ 15 March 2005, Case C-209/03, Bidar.

11 ECJ 23 March 2004, Case C-138/02, Collins.

12 ECJ 7 September 2004, Case C-456/02, Trojani.

13 ECJ 26 October 2006, Case C-192/05, Tas-Hagen and Tas; ECJ 23 October 2007, Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06, Morgan and Bucher.

14 ECJ 5 June 2008, Case C-164/07, Wood.

15 ECJ 17 September 2002, Case C-413/99, Baumbast and R.

16 Düsterhaus, supra n. 8 p. 462.

17 ECJ 7 September 2004, Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573.

18 ECJ 21 July 2011, Joined Cases C-325/09 Dias and C-424/10, Ziolkowski and Szeja.

19 See, in detail, on the different stages of the case-law Dougan, M., ‘The Bubble that Burst: Exploring the Legitimacy of the Case Law on the Free Movement of Union Citizens’ in M. Adams et al., Judging Europe’s Judges (Hart Publishing 2013) p. 127 at p. 133Google Scholar, as well as D. Düsterhaus, supra n. 8, p. 469-473.

20 ECJ 20 September 2001, Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, para. 44

21 ECJ 23 March 2004, Case C-138/02 Collins, para. 69

22 ECJ 15 March 2005, Case C-209/03, Bidar, para. 57.

23 ECJ 20 September 2001, Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, para. 43.

24 Political and media discourse on ‘welfare tourism’ started even before the 2004 enlargement, see Shuibhne, N. Nic and Shaw, J., ‘General Report’ in U. Neergaard et al., XXVI FIDE 2014 Congress Publications Vol. 2, Union Citizenship, (DJØF Publishing 2014) p. 65Google Scholar at p. 211.

25 Supra n. 6.

26 Supra n. 7.

27 Meduna, M., ‘Institutional report’, in: U. Neergaard et al., supra n. 24 p. 268Google Scholar.

28 See, in detail, van Overmeiren, F. et al., ‘Social Security Coverage of Non-Active Persons Moving to Another Member State’ in E. Guild et al., supra n. 4, p. 227Google Scholar.

29 Pursuant to Article 1(j) of Regulation 883/2004, this is the place where a person habitually resides. It may be defined as ‘the centre of interests of the person concerned, based on an overall assessment of all available information relating to relevant facts’ (Article 11 of Regulation No 987/2009).

30 Annex X to Regulation currently comprises roughly 70 benefits notified by the member states, most of them relating to old-age and disability/invalidity.

31 This fear appears not to be shared by the ‘majority of Member States [who] remain fairly unconcerned and deaf to suggestions of change’, Guild, E., ‘Does European Citizenship Blur the Borders of Solidarity?’ in: E. Guild et al., supra n. 4, p. 189Google Scholar.

32 Council document 11834/11 ADD 1.

33 Available at <docs.dpaq.de/3604-130415_letter_to_presidency_final_1_2.pdf>, visited 12 January 2015.

34 The ICF GHK and Milieu study commissioned by DG Employment, of 14 October 2013, available at: <ec.europa.eu/employment_social/empl_portal/facebook/20131014%20GHK%20study%20web_EU%20migration.pdf>, last visited 11 January 2015, concluded that ‘the share of non-active intra-EU migrants is very small, they account for a similarly limited share of SNCB recipients and the budgetary impact of such claims on national welfare budgets is very low. Employment remains the key driver for intra-EU migration and activity rates among such migrants have indeed increased over the last 7 years.’

35 ICF GHK and Milieu study, p. 63.

36 ICFGHK and Milieu study, p. 14.

37 ECJ 4 June 2009, Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08, Vatsouras and Koupatantze [2009] ECR I-4585.

38 ECJ 4 June 2009, Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08 Vatsouras and Koupatantze, para. 38.

39 It should be stressed that most courts concluded that § 7(1) SGB II does not validly exclude entitlement to ‘basic provision’, at least insofar as people not actively looking for, or prevented from, work are concerned. See, inter alia, LSG NRW 5 May 2014, L 19 AS 430/13 and 10 October 2013, L 19 AS 129/13 – juris, finding that § 7(1)(2) SGB II does not apply to persons not seeking a job; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg 6 March 2014, L 31 AS 1348/13 – juris, and 3 April 2012, L 5 AS 257/11 B ER – juris; Hess. LSG 14 July 2011, L 7 AS 107/11 B ER – juris; BSG, NVwZ-RR 2012, 726(727) requiring that the intention to seek work must be established.

40 Considering the German ‘basic provision’ to constitute social assistance outside the remit of Regulation No 883/2004: Kötter, U., ‘Ansprüche von BürgerInnen der Europäischen Union auf Leistungen der sozialen Grundsicherung nach dem SGB II zwischen Gleichbehandlungsanspruch und Demokratieprinzip’, info also (2013) p. 243Google Scholar at p. 251. Taking the opposite view: Kingreen, T., ‘Staatsangehörigkeit als Differenzierungskriterium im Sozialleistungsrecht. Zur Vereinbarkeit von § 7 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 2 SGB II mit europäischem Unions- und deutschem Verfassungsrecht’, SGb (2013) p. 132Google Scholar.

41 The Bundessozialgericht in ECJ Case C-67/14, Alimanovic, the Sozialgericht Dortmund in ECJ Case C-19/14 (dismissed by reasoned order of 3 July 2014) and, recently, the Landessozialgericht NRW in ECJ Case C-299/14, Garcia-Nieto.

42 ECJ 19 September 2013, Case C-140/12, Brey, paras. 44 and 45.

43 ECJ Brey, para. 77.

44 ECJ Brey, para. 58.

45 See Thym, D., ‘Sozialleistungen für und Aufenthalt von nichterwerbstätigen Unionsbürgern’, NZS (2014) p. 81Google Scholar.

46 This interpretation is not obvious, given that it bluntly transposes a derogation clause expressing the scheme and objectives of the SGB XII to the SGB II.

47 Thym, supra n. 45.

48 As it had done in Brey, para. 77. Decidedly opposing this approach: Fuchs, M., ‘Freizügiger Sozialtourismus?’, ZESAR (2014) p. 103Google Scholar.

49 According to its written observations, which are still accessible at <mediendienst-integration.de/fileadmin/Dateien/Empfehlung_Europ_Kommission_Sozialleistungen_GER.pdf>, para. 100, last visited 12 January 2015. The background of this case would indeed not be sufficiently described without mentioning the public debate surrounding these observations. They had been obtained and published by German social rights lobby groups. The message distilled and transmitted by the media was that the Commission had stipulated an unconditional right for unemployed nationals of other Member States to claim social benefits in Germany. This spurred the Commission to react with a press release clarifying its position.

50 See Farahat, A., ‘Kollisionsrechtliche und aufenthaltsrechtliche Perspektiven beim Leistungsausschluss von Unionsbürgern nach § 7 Abs. 1 S. 2 Nr. 2 SGB II’, NZS (2014) p. 490Google Scholar.

51 Para. 152.

52 Paras 135-137 of the Opinion.

53 Paras 112-116 of the Opinion.

54 Para. 84 of the Judgment.

55 Para. 55.

56 Para. 58.

57 Paras 61-62.

58 Para. 63.

59 Para. 67.

60 Para. 71 and 73.

61 Para. 76.

62 Para. 77.

63 Paras 78-80.

64 Para. 81.

65 Simon, D., ‘L’arrêt Dano ou comment se créent les mythes’, Europe (2014)Google Scholar no 12, repère 11.

66 H. Küchler, ‘Kein Sozialtourismus unter dem Deckmantel der Freizügigkeit’, <jean-monnet-saar.eu/?p=659>, visited 11 January 2015.

67 Limiting the categorical exclusion from benefits to the initial period seems to have been a deliberate choice in order to find a compromise between the Council and EP/COM, notably under the impression of the Court’s case-law. The Commission had initially proposed to exclude economically inactive citizens from social assistance before the acquisition of permanent residence before siding with the EP. The Council had suggested that the condition of sufficient resources was to be considered as met as long as economically inactive citizens did not become an unreasonable burden, Meduna, M., supra n. 27, p. 263Google Scholar.

68 Tambou, O., ‘Des mots, des maux, démons autour de la citoyenneté sociale européenne’ Dalloz actualité (2 December 2014)Google Scholar <dalloz-actualite.fr/chronique/des-mots-des-maux-demons-autour-de-citoyennete-sociale-europeenne>, visited 12 January 2015.

69 This is underlined by the Commission’s ‘Guidance for better transposition’, COM(2009) 313/4. See also Lenaerts, K. and Heremans, T., ‘Contours of a European Social Union in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice’, 2 EuConst (2006) p. 101Google Scholar at p. 107, who refer to a ‘balancing act’ and Minderhoud, P., supra n. 4, p. 224Google Scholar. For a recent overview on the relevant case-law see Guild, E. et al., The EU Citizenship Directive (2014) p. 234-240Google Scholar.

70 Azoulai, L., ‘La citoyenneté européenne, un statut d’intégration sociale’, in J.-C. Piris et al. (eds.) Mélanges Jean Paul Jacqué. Chemins d’Europe (Dalloz 2010) p. 1Google Scholar at p. 18.

71 van Overmeiren, et al., ‘Social Security Coverage of Non-Active Persons Moving to Another Member State’, in E. Guild et al., supra n. 4, p. 227 at p. 257Google Scholar.

72 Verschueren, H., ‘Free Movement or Benefit Tourism: The Unreasonable Burden of Brey’, 14 European Journal of Migration and Law (2014) p. 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuchs, M., ‘Freizügiger Sozialtourismus?’, ZESAR (2014) p. 103Google Scholar.

73 van Overmeiren, et al., ‘Social Security Coverage of Non-Active Persons Moving to Another Member State’, in E. Guild et al., supra n. 4, p. 227 at p. 253Google Scholar; Verschueren, supra n. 72, p. 179.

74 See also Verschueren, supra n. 72, p. 164, claiming that this may result in a reconsideration of the export ban.

75 See already Verschueren supra n. 72 p. 163, who points out that the SNCB coordination regime concerns these persons in the first place.

76 Building upon a similar analysis of the circumstances at issue in Bidar and Grzelczyk by Lenaerts and Heremans, supra n. 69, p. 107.

77 ECJ, pending Case C-67/14, Alimanovic.

78 Hailbronner, K., ‘EU-Freizügigkeit für nicht erwerbstätige Unionsbürger?’, Juristenzeitung (2014) p. 869CrossRefGoogle Scholar, notes that, in the last few years, roughly only 30 to 40 per cent of the decisions ordering EU citizens to leave Germany have actually led to a departure and that both the number of re-entries and, generally, that of EU citizens not meeting the requirements of legal residence is unknown.

79 Thym, supra n. 45.

80 This Council of Europe Convention of 11 December 1953 entitles the nationals of the Contracting Parties to receive social assistance. The German government’s decision followed a judgment of the Federal social court finding the Convention to require granting ‘basic provision’.

81 On this specific issue see Düsterhaus, D., ‘EU Citizenship and Fundamental Rights: Contradictory, Converging or Complementary?’ in D. Kochenov (ed.) EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights (Cambridge CUP, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

82 This has been suggested by different German State social courts, notably LSG Bayern 22 December 2010, L 16 AS 767/10 B ER – juris and finds support in the literature: T. Kingreen, supra n. 40, p. 139. Regarding benefits for asylum seekers BVerfG 18 July 2012, 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11, at marginal no. 121 held that ‘migration-policy considerations of keeping benefits paid […] low to avoid incentives for migration, if benefits were high compared to international standards, may generally not justify any reduction of benefits below the physical and socio-cultural existential minimum. […] Human dignity may not be relativised by migration-policy considerations.’

83 See, on instances of an isolated application of rigid secondary law clauses in circumstances previously found to require an individualized proportionality assessment: O’Leary, S., ‘Equal treatment and EU citizens: A new chapter on cross-border educational mobility and access to student financial assistance, 34 ELRev (2009) p. 612Google Scholar at p. 623; Dougan, supra n. 17, p. 140; Neuvonen, P. J., ‘In search of (even) more substance for the “real link” test: comment on Prinz and Seeberger’, 39 ELRev (2009) p. 125 at p. 132Google Scholar.

84 Dougan, M., ‘The Constitutional Dimension to the Case Law on Union Citizenship’, 31 ELRev (2006) p. 613Google Scholar.

85 Lenaerts, K., ‘The Court’s Outer and Inner Selves: Exploring the External and Internal Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice’, in Adams et al., supra n. 19, p. 13Google Scholar.

86 ECJ 18 November 2008, Case C-158/07, Förster. The Court accepted a Dutch exclusionary rule for study aid on the basis that Directive 2004/38, which did not yet apply to the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, allows such a rule.

87 This argument has been made by D. Thym, ‘EU Free Movement as a Legal Construction – not as Social Imagination’, <eutopialaw.com/2014/11/13/>, visited 11 January 2015.

88 B. De Witte has recently pointed out that the difficulty of an EU legislative overruling of the Court’s interpretation is aggravated where it relates to primary law: ‘Democratic Adjudication in Europe – How Can the Court of Justice Be Responsive to the Citizens?’, in Dougan, M. et al. (eds.), Empowerment and Disempowerment of the European Citizen (Hart Publishing 2012) p. 129Google Scholar.

89 On top of the findings recalled supra n. 35-37 that there is no indication of structurally significant ‘welfare tourism’, it is worth noting that less than 4 per cent of the EU migrants above 15 years and constituting 0.015 per cent of the total population above 15 are in the situation of Ms Dano, i.e. that of a single, unemployed parent. Assuming that even less are equally poorly educated, the burden on the German social security budget appears insignificant.

90 As the Court has maintained since ECJ 20 September 2001, Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, para. 31.

91 Lenaerts, and Heremans, , supra n. 69, p. 127Google Scholar.

92 I am referring to the three residence Directives 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

93 Brücker et al., ‘Arbeitsmigration oder Armutsmigration?’, <doku.iab.de/kurzber/2013/kb1613.pdf>, visited 12 January 2015, p. 5. See also the findings of the Milieu study, supra n. 35-37. Whilst it cannot be denied either that some municipalities are particularly affected by the influx of needy migrants, the ensuing costs could easily be offset against the overall fiscal benefit which EU migration provides for the member state concerned.

94 Farahat, , supra n. 50, p. 495Google Scholar.

95 Meduna, , supra n. 27, p. 313Google Scholar.

96 In the same vein it is difficult to understand why, out of the 120 genuine citizenship cases decided by the Court of Justice in the last 20 years, only 6 have been brought by the Commission under the infringement procedure. See, however, Case C-308/14 Commission v UK, which is currently pending before the Court, supra n. 5.

97 Brücker, et al, supra n. 93, p. 2Google Scholar found that the economic deterioration in Italy and Spain has led many Romanian and Bulgarian jobseekers to leave these countries for Germany.