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

UK faces EU intervention over tests for migrants

The European Commission may refer the UK to the EU Court over English tests for migrants, said European Union (EU) Commissioner Laszlo Andor on Friday.

In a Twitter question and answer session on the free movement of workers in the EU, the Hungarian Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion said the EU Commission had already referred the UK to the EU Court and would, “… look at [the] latest measures and act again if necessary.”

In reference to the UK government’s response to concerns over Bulgarian and Romanian migrants, the Commissioner said, “[The] UK should avoid rhetoric and measures that run risk of [the] UK being seen by others as nasty.”

In January, the UK will see the lifting of restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers, a move which has garnered widespread opposition from Conservative MPs.

“Responsible politicians should avoid legitimising xenophobic reactions that indeed weaken the European spirit,” said Mr Andor.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith earlier this week announced further benefits restrictions for both EU and non-EU migrants, and returning British citizens who have been living abroad.

Under the new habitual resident test, only migrants who are able to pass a series of tests, including an English test, will have access to benefits.    

“The British public are rightly concerned that migrants should contribute to this country and not be drawn here by the attractiveness of our benefits system and we are taking action to ensure that is the case,” said Mr Iain Smith.

The tougher restrictions will go ahead next week regardless of Brussels’ calls to drop the plans, which could see the UK face court action on the basis of discrimination.  

“[The] EU already has very clear rules - the Habitual Residence Test. [The] UK should apply it (like all other Member States),” said Mr Andor.  

The UK’s existing habitual resident test is being legally challenged by the European Commission for allegedly unfairly and unlawfully denying EU migrants access to unemployment and family welfare benefits, among other allowances.

The Commission believes the test to be discriminatory and not in line with European free movement legislation.

The UK’s efforts to deter so-called benefit tourists have drawn some support from other EU member states, including Austria, the Netherlands and Germany. Yet the EU Commission has dismissed the concerns as scaremongering, with the UK having failed to provide evidence of abuse.  

Mr Andor said, “No EU country has given any hard evidence that widespread or systematic benefit tourism exists.”

         
Related articles

Britain fails to renegotiate EU free movement rules

Benefit tourism claims under fire

Benefit tourism claims under fire

The European Commission has requested evidence of the UK government’s claims of large-scale ‘benefit tourism’ by EU migrants to the UK. 

The claims, which the Commission believes to be unfounded, have sparked dispute between the executive body and the government.

The Commission’s legal challenge to the government's efforts to increase restrictions on who can claim benefits in the UK has been criticised by Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary.

The clash follows the publication of a European Commission report which claims unemployed EU migrants number at fewer than five per cent of benefit claimants in the majority of the EU nations studied.

According to the report, less than 38,000 EU migrants claim Jobseeker's Allowance in the UK and unemployed migrants made up just 1.2 per cent of the total population in 2012.

EU migrants are “net contributors,” said European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd, who added that the UK government has failed to provide credible evidence of the claims despite requests which have spanned three years.

“The vast majority of migrants go to the UK to work, and they actually contribute more to the welfare system than they take out,” said Todd.

Downing Street has defended the claims and reaffirmed the notion there is “widespread and understandable concern” over EU migrants coming to the UK to access benefits.

However, the Commission said there is no evidence that EU migrants are migrating to other member states with the motive of benefiting from their social welfare systems.

“The study makes clear that the majority of mobile EU citizens move to another member state to work and puts into perspective the dimension of the so-called benefit tourism which is neither widespread nor systematic”, said EU Commissioner László Andor.

Ensuring migrants don’t become a burden on the state has become a focus of the government in recent years, evidenced by changes not only to benefit restrictions on EU migrants, but to the requirements which British nationals must meet in order to sponsor a non-EU family member to settle in the UK.

The July 2012 changes, which saw the government introduce a minimum annual income threshold of GBP 18,600 for sponsors, have been justified by the government on the basis there is a pressing need to protect the taxpayer against welfare drain by migrants in this category.

However, such migrants have no recourse to public funds during their initial five-year probationary period and according to a recent study by Middlesex University London, non-EU partners were not a burden on the welfare system under the old rules.

With an absence of factual evidence pointing towards abuse of the benefit system by both EU and non-EU migrants, the proportionality of the restrictions is questionable. It seems the government is once again playing on the public’s fears rather than facts in trying to make a credible connection between migration and welfare dependency.