Ecj: no social benefits for eu immigrants in the first three months

The European Court of Justice In its judgment, the validity of German social legislation in the relation to Union law

Before the enormous immigration of asylum seekers last year was "Social benefit tourism" The keyword for heated political debates. It is about the right of EU burgers who come to Germany on social benefits. The debate was further charged at the beginning of 2014 by a positioning of the EU Commission (see. "Hartz-IV also for immigrants who are not actively looking for a work"To).

This raised a central question: "How far can German provisions be agreed on social benefits with European law?", their answering complicated (Z.B. Is Hartz-IV social assistance? and to the finding of a considerable legal uncertainty, especially in social courts, whose judges were insecure, as German social legislation was to be classified against the Union law. If the texts are compatible with the EU principles in the Social Code? To what extent did the regulations of the German Social Code exist at EU level or violate workers’ discretion and non-discrimination?

Basic answers to it hoped for from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which also provided for well-observed principles: "Unconfiscate immigrants from EU states, which, with the aim of being enjoyed by social benefits, are excluded from basic benefits and "Immigrants who have worked for a short time in Germany have no entitlement to long-term social benefits"To).

The ECJ published today is also based on a case of the Landessozialgericht in North Rhine-Westphalia, which wanted to know if the German regulations are compatible with the Union law. It was about the question of whether unemployed burgers from other EU member states are already entitled to social assistance services during the first three months of their stay.

The European Court of Justice decided in its judgment against such a claim and Bestneck the validity of the national regulation. The court on preceding decisions, which also made the national regulations.

In the decision, the argument of Advocate General Melchior Wathelet was visible, according to which the right of law on social assistance services for Union Burger, the danger, "This is the fact that a mass immigration is drawn, which could entail an inappropriate use of social security systems".

In the verdict of the European Court of Justice, it is called:

I love that persons who have no right of residence under Directive 2004/38, under the same conditions such as Inlander’s social benefits, were subject to the objective set out in the tenth resource of this Directive, an inappropriate use of the social assistance services of the host Member State by Union Burger to prevent nationwide of other Member States.

The judgment was based on the case of a Spanish family. The woman and her daughter already lived in Germany for a few months, where the mother after a social security contribution. Father and son retired and requested social benefits, which were denied them for the period of the first three months (later not more), which is why they complained (see points 27-34 of the judgment).

An individual case envision is not necessary in such cases, so the court.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: