UK can refuse benefits to unemployed EU migrants, judges rule (Vrij verkeer van personen geeft geen recht op Bijstand)

European court of justice rejects commission claim that imposition of ‘right to reside’ test is discriminatory

Under the UK’s ‘emergency brake’ new EU migrants will have no access to benefits for four years. Composite: Steve Parsons/PA

Europe’s top judges have backed Britain’s right to refuse to pay family welfare benefits to unemployed EU migrants who have been in Britain for less than five years.
The ruling by the European court of justice confirms that EU rules on free movement do not prevent Britain and other member states blocking access to welfare benefits if immigrants are unemployed and unable to support themselves.

The judges in Luxembourg threw out the challenge by the European commission, which argued that the decision by Britain to impose a “right to reside” test on EU immigrants before they could claim child benefit or child tax credit was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of an EU directive.
The court ruling said there was nothing in the EU social security directives that prevented the UK imposing conditions that immigrants should be legally resident in the UK to get access to welfare benefits.


Continue here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

EU court to back UK limits on migrants' access to child benefits

European court of justice set to throw out challenge by European commission over right to residence requirement

The European court of justice in Luxembourg. Photograph: Alamy

An attempt by the European commission to challenge Britain’s right to deny some EU migrants access to child benefit and child tax credits is expected to be thrown out by European judges.
The ruling from the European court of justice is expected to confirm that Britain can insist that only EU citizens with a lawful “right of residence” in the UK can claim social security benefits.
The European commission claimed that the decision by Britain to impose a right of residence test to access certain family benefits amounted to direct discrimination against citizens of other EU member states.
The ruling is expected to the first of several legal challenges to Britain’s attempt to curb what David Cameron has called “benefit tourism” and restrict the impact of the EU’s freedom of movement rules on the UK.

The Polish government and others are expected to challenge Cameron’s emergency brake mechanism, under which new EU migrants will be denied access to in-work welfare benefits and tax credits during their first four years in the UK.
The right to residence test is based on an EU directive that says a citizen of another EU state has the right to live in Britain for more than three months only if they are in work or self-employed, or have sufficient resources and comprehensive health insurance so that they are not a burden on the social security system.
The European commission argued to Europe’s most senior court that the simple fact of habitual residence in another EU state should be enough to qualify for family welfare support. They argued that otherwise some EU citizens could be left without any family support despite the fact they live in the EU and have dependent children.
But in a preliminary opinion, the court’s advocate-general, Pedro Cruz Villalon, said last October that the commission’s challenge should be dismissed. He said that although the right to residence test could be regarded as indirect discrimination, it could be justified by the need to protect Britain’s public finances.

Continue: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/14/european-court-back-uk-limits-migrants-access-child-benefits


Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.