This question requires a discussion on the most controversial issue in this area of
law: whether economically inactive migrants should be entitled to social benefits.
Particularly, Dano and Alimanovic have created volte face judgments from the previous
social Europe.
Union citizenship was introduced in the European Union (EU) by the Maastricht
Treaty 1992 (TEU) which aims to bring the Union closer together. Union citizenship’s
greatest impact is to allow economically inactive Member States’ (MS) nationals to derive
rights from the Treaty especially free movement.
Prior to the TEU, free movement was merely provided for those who contributed to
the internal market, i.e. economically active citizens (those under Art 45, 49, 56 Treaty on
the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)). Yet, by virtue of union citizenship, economically inactive
union citizens can now rely on Arts 18, 20, 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38 (CRD) which is
competent to all freedom of movement provisions. This shows economically inactive
citizens now have plenty of options to get equal treatment.
EU citizenship is automatically granted to MS national under Art20 where Art 21
grants citizens free movement rights, subject to ‘limitation and conditions’. Vitally, Art 18
prohibits any discrimination on the grounds of nationality, disregard direct (Martinez Sala)
or indirect (Bidar). Clarification on free movement rights can be found in case laws and in
Directive 2004/38. Particularly, Art7(1)(b) requires economically inactive union citizens to
have sufficient resources and sickness insurance cover (self-sufficiency).
Developments of Union Citizenship through Case Laws
Traditionally, the three seminal judgments which gave legal sense to the concept of
citizenship are Martínez Sala, Grzelczyk and Baumbast. As per Prof Shuibhne in “Limits
Rising”, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in these cases took an ‘individual-centred
approach’ and construed the concept of citizenship as a directly effective primary right.
The first citizenship case of Sala extended the ambit of the entitlement to social
benefit from only economically active to inactive citizens. It established that a EU citizen
who lawfully resides in another MS (by virtue of national law) is entitled to a combined
reading of Arts 18 and 20 to equal treatment with host MS’ nationals regarding social
benefits.
This implies that the citizen’s self-sufficiency test is no longer a concern since he is
already a lawful resident of that MS. In short, Sala brought a fundamental change in the
EU’s outlook, moving it away from a purely economic body to a more social and political
being.
law: whether economically inactive migrants should be entitled to social benefits.
Particularly, Dano and Alimanovic have created volte face judgments from the previous
social Europe.
Union citizenship was introduced in the European Union (EU) by the Maastricht
Treaty 1992 (TEU) which aims to bring the Union closer together. Union citizenship’s
greatest impact is to allow economically inactive Member States’ (MS) nationals to derive
rights from the Treaty especially free movement.
Prior to the TEU, free movement was merely provided for those who contributed to
the internal market, i.e. economically active citizens (those under Art 45, 49, 56 Treaty on
the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)). Yet, by virtue of union citizenship, economically inactive
union citizens can now rely on Arts 18, 20, 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38 (CRD) which is
competent to all freedom of movement provisions. This shows economically inactive
citizens now have plenty of options to get equal treatment.
EU citizenship is automatically granted to MS national under Art20 where Art 21
grants citizens free movement rights, subject to ‘limitation and conditions’. Vitally, Art 18
prohibits any discrimination on the grounds of nationality, disregard direct (Martinez Sala)
or indirect (Bidar). Clarification on free movement rights can be found in case laws and in
Directive 2004/38. Particularly, Art7(1)(b) requires economically inactive union citizens to
have sufficient resources and sickness insurance cover (self-sufficiency).
Developments of Union Citizenship through Case Laws
Traditionally, the three seminal judgments which gave legal sense to the concept of
citizenship are Martínez Sala, Grzelczyk and Baumbast. As per Prof Shuibhne in “Limits
Rising”, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in these cases took an ‘individual-centred
approach’ and construed the concept of citizenship as a directly effective primary right.
The first citizenship case of Sala extended the ambit of the entitlement to social
benefit from only economically active to inactive citizens. It established that a EU citizen
who lawfully resides in another MS (by virtue of national law) is entitled to a combined
reading of Arts 18 and 20 to equal treatment with host MS’ nationals regarding social
benefits.
This implies that the citizen’s self-sufficiency test is no longer a concern since he is
already a lawful resident of that MS. In short, Sala brought a fundamental change in the
EU’s outlook, moving it away from a purely economic body to a more social and political
being.
