Eugh: immigrants who have worked for a short time in Germany are not entitled to long-term social benefits
Anyone who gets social assistance and who is denied them is a brenzy question that is charged with new irritation in view of the escape waves. Last year, the main theme was still immigration from other EU countries, "Social benefit tourism" Was the ignition word. That it could beat coarse sparks was also on legal uncertainty. Signals came from the EU that German regulations could be embraced by EU regulations.
For example, the EU Commission’s Assessment in early last year, after which Germany should facilitate access to social benefits for immigrants ("Hartz-IV also for immigrants who are not actively looking for a work"To). With the social courts, uncertainties came to whether brussels did not have the last determining word of it when it comes to the question of which social benefits immigrants are entitled in Germany (Hartz-IV: "Significant doubts as to whether the transmission exclusion is compatible with EU Community law", see. also Hartz-IV for EU foreigners: integration into the labor market as a central criterion).
You hoped for clarification through the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In November last year, such an exemplary decision fell. In the case of Dano, the ECJ revived the validity of national regulations: Anyone who comes as non-employed immigrants from EU states is not to look for work, but "Alone with the aim of enjoying social benefits", Be excluded from basic benefits (ECJ Expanded Exclusion of Hartz-IV for certain EU immigrants). However, the case was referred to as special cases by experts and politicians.
Today, the ECJ now decided on the Hartz IV claim to an EU immigrant, which had temporarily worked in Germany – and that when she was unemployed, social benefits for himself and their children had received. However, only for six months. After that, the Jobcenter set the payments. It was contentious whether this is justifiably in the sense of equal treatment when German nationals who are in the same situation are preserved.
The ECJ decided that the refusal of social benefits in such a case not violated the principle of equal treatment. According to his decision, the State may refuse social assistance after six months after six months.
For jobseekers as in the present case, there are two opportunities to obtain a residence rights – according to the findings of the Court of Justice: is a Union Burger, which has a right of residence as a working condition, involuntarily became unemployed after working less than a year, and poses He is available to the state-owned labor office, he retains his working property and his right of residence for at least six months. During this total period, he can call on the principle of equal treatment and is entitled to social assistance services.
If a Union burger has not yet worked in the host Member State or if the period of six months has expired, a jobseeker must not be reported from the host Member State, as long as it can prove that he will continue to seek work and has a reasonable prospect of being discontinued. In this case, however, the host Member State may refuse any social assistance.
It does not have to be around in individual cases, the court clearly asked, "Because the graduated system planned in the Union Burger Directive for the maintenance of the acquisition property, which is to secure the right of residence and access to social benefits, takes into account itself various factors".