Press release

C-299/14;

Came into force? Unknown

The Court of Justice confirms that nationals of other Member States may be refused certain social benefits in their first three months of residence

Guiding principle of court

Such a refusal does not presuppose an individual assessment

Click here to the full text of the judgement

In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice confirms its recent case-law¹ to the effect that a Member State may exclude nationals of other Member States from certain social benefits (such as German subsistence benefits for jobseekers and their children²) during their first three months of residence.

The Court points out that, under the Citizenship Directive,³ EU citizens have the right to reside in another Member State for a period of up to three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. Since the Member States cannot require Union citizens to have sufficient means of subsistence and personal medical cover for that period, in order to maintain the financial equilibrium of their social assistance systems, the directive allows them to refuse to grant those citizens any social assistance during the first three months.⁴ According to the Court, such a refusal does not presuppose an assessment of the individual situation of the person concerned.

By this judgment, the Court responds to questions referred by the Landessozialgericht NordrheinWestfalen (Higher Social Court, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), which has to resolve a dispute⁵ between a Spanish family, the Peña-García family, and a German employment centre. The employment centre refused to grant German subsistence benefits⁶ to Mr Joel Peña Cuevas and his son for their first three months of residence in Germany. Under German legislation, foreign nationals are, in principle, excluded from such benefits for the first three months of their residence. Mr Peña Cuevas and his son arrived in Germany at the end of June 2012, a few months after Ms García-Nieto and their daughter. On that date, Ms García-Nieto was already in regular work in Germany, for which, from July 2012, she was compulsorily affiliated to German social security. From the same month, the family received child benefits and the children began attending school at the end of August 2012.

--------------
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
-----------------
¹ Case: C-67/14 Alimanovic, see also Press Release No. 101/15 (a Member State may exclude Union citizens who go to that State to find work from certain non-contributory social security benefits), and Case: C-333/13 Dano, see also Press Release No. 146/14: economically inactive EU citizens who go to another Member State solely in order to obtain social assistance may be excluded from certain social benefits).
²Subsistence benefits under Book II of the German Social Code. Other benefits, such as child benefits, are not the subject-matter of the present judgment.
³Directive 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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda at OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34).
⁴That rule does not apply to workers, self-employed persons and those persons who retain that status.
⁵Following an appeal brought by the employment centre, these are second instance proceedings. At first instance, the Sozialgericht Gelsenkirchen (Social Court, Gelsenkirchen) upheld the action brought by the Peña-García family.
⁶See footnote 2 above.

-----------------------------------------------------
Our recorded decisions are mostly new formated. This means, that there are new empty lines involved and some parts were made fat, italic or underlined, etc., different to the original. This shall emphasize but not change! If you want to see the original, this is a link to the source (no link? Then this link is not saved in our db, for instance because this decision is recorded before spring 2009).