EU Ruling to impact on European Free Movement and the right to residence?

Source : BBC News with Analysis by Europe correspondent Chris Morris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30002138
The ruling

Today the European Court of Justice gave its ruling on a case that could have a wide ranging impact on European Free Movement. 

"The European Court of Justice has said member states are within their rights to refuse to give financial help to unemployed EU citizens who move to that country just to claim benefits".

The most concerning part of the ruling could be the part relating to the right of residency.
"The Court also said Ms Dano and her son could not claim a right of residence in Germany because they do not have sufficient resources to support themselves"

It could pave the way for even more restrictions to be announced before the end of the year.
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said the government - which has often been at odds with the European Court of Justice in the past - was hailing the ruling as evidence the UK and Germany were on the "same page" when it came to benefit abuses and could pave the way for further restrictions in the coming months."

"The prime minister has said he wants to go further and will set out his plans in a speech before the end of the year, amid pressure from Conservative backbenchers to act."

Since posting this yesterday there are now further sources and links to articles now that the press, legal community and the spin doctors have read the ruling:-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/germany-deny-benefits-welfare-jobless-eu-migrants
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/11/european-court-benefits-ruling-bolsters-eu-freedom-movement

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/what-are-implications-of-todays-ecj.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11224615/EU-benefit-tourists-face-being-sent-home-after-landmark-court-ruling.html

http://www.ein.org.uk/news/european-court-justice-rules-states-can-exclude-benefit-tourists-claiming-social-assistance

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-court-moves-against-benefits-tourism-in-landmark-ruling-9853673.html

Update 20 Nov 2014

It has now been a week since this came out and has been widely hyped and spun by the press in the anti-immigration climate that has developed in the run up to the Rochester by-election that happens today.

So how much of this has been hyped or distorted by the press, spin doctors and politicians? 

Our learned friends at the freemovement blog have been spending a lot of time looking at the facts, analysing the possible implications and cutting through the media spin and hype to bring us an objective view of what if any impact this will have.
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/dano-and-the-exclusion-of-inactive-eu-citizens-from-certain-non-contributory-social-benefits/#more-18373

A big thank you to them for making this widely available to everyone.

EuLawAnalysis blog has also done an article about the historical context of the judgement.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/free-movement-and-social-benefits-for.html

Free movement - references to some key court rulings

Here is a summary of some useful case law and other official documentation which could prove useful to those interested in exercising free movement rights.   Reliance on case law should not be blind as it is not necessarily all that is needed to establish rights.  It may not be appropriate for your situation and showing off how much more you know than the caseworker by OD’ing on case law references is likely to piss them off.  Pride is a strange thing! 

Furthermore, Home Office is notoriously slow in updating UK regulations to reflect recent court decisions it is not happy with.  Sadly, it is also not unknown for the Home Office to adopt the most restrictive interpretation possible, leaving it to another case years down the line, to shed clarity or hold the department accountable. 

There are sometimes inconsistencies between judgments where the more recent judgment could ‘trump’ an earlier one, or provide clarification. 

The key message is based on my understanding.  Links are provided so readers can form their own opinions and as always, when in any doubt, you are strongly advised to seek specialist immigration advice.  

Please send any suggestions and corrections (much welcomed) to BritCits@gmail.com