EU court ruling backs curbs on 'benefit tourism'

[Die Neue Zeit]

EU court ruling backs curbs on 'benefit tourism'



By BBC News

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 ruling on so-called "benefit tourism", relating to a case in Germany, could set an important legal precedent for the rest of the EU.

It could allow the UK to exclude some migrants from specific benefits.

Downing Street welcomed the ruling, saying it supported the PM's position.

The government has already tightened the rules so EU migrants have to wait three months after arriving in the UK before they can claim child benefit and child tax credits.

Migrants are also barred from claiming jobseeker's allowance after three months if they are not looking for work.

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.

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.

Freedom of movement

Tuesday's ruling from the Luxembourg-based court relates to a case involving a Romanian woman and her son living in Germany who had been denied access to a non-contributory subsistence allowance from its social security system.

It said the defendant did not have sufficient financial resources to claim residency in Germany after the initial three months and therefore could not claim that the rules excluding her from certain benefits were discriminatory.

More broadly, it said the right of EU citizens to live and work in other member states - the principle of freedom of movement - did not stop states passing legislation of their own excluding migrants from some non-contributory benefits open to their citizens.

'UK competence'

National parliaments, it stated, have the "competence to define the extent of the social cover" offered in the form of certain non-contributory benefits.

"The (EU) directive thus seeks to prevent economically inactive European Union citizens from using the host member state's welfare system to fund their means of subsistence," it said in a statement.

"A member state must therefore have the possibility of refusing to grant social benefits to economically inactive European Union citizens who exercise their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain another member state's social assistance."

The ruling only applies to non-contributory benefits, benefits where the claimant does not make a contribution through the tax system.

'Positive'

A No 10 spokesman said it would look at the ruling closely, suggesting it backed the prime minister's view that freedom of movement could not remain an unqualified right.

Aides to Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said the ruling was "positive" while Conservative MEPs said it was a victory for "common sense".

"It will have wide-ranging implications for how the UK can tighten its welfare system to ensure only migrants that make a contribution can receive something back," Timothy Kirkhope, the party's home affairs spokesman in Brussels, said.

Labour also backed the judgement, saying only people who contribute to the economy should be able to fall back on the welfare state.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves urged ministers to extend the three-month waiting time for benefit claims and stop migrants from claiming child benefit for dependants living abroad.

The European Commission has said it supports action by member states to tackle abuse of the benefits system by migrants but that it will not countenance restrictions on the general principles of freedom of movement and labour across Europe.

Analysis by Europe correspondent Chris Morris

This isn't a blanket ban on EU migrants claiming benefits - nothing like it.

The woman involved in this case, Elisabeta Dano, already receives child benefit in Germany.

But the European Court agreed that she could be denied access to a subsistence allowance available to jobseekers because she isn't actively seeking work.

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.

In response, the European Commission said it has consistently stressed that freedom of movement is about the right of circulation, not about an unrestricted right to claim benefits - and the European Court has confirmed this.

But ironically this ruling could make it more difficult for David Cameron to renegotiate Britain's ability to exclude some EU migrants from parts of the benefit system.

Other EU leaders could turn round and say that the Court has now made it clear that the UK (and others) can already do that under existing rules.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is it just me, or does this court ruling reinforce anti-immigrant misconceptions about lots of immigrants?

[Palmares]

I'm pretty rusty on the movement of peoples in Europe these days, but when I lived in Europe quite a while ago I do remember the everpresent racism against Polish (but not limited to) immigrants. Related to this, I would presume this legislation is largely targeting Eastern Europeans? Perhaps someone geographically closer to Europe could correct me?

[tuwix]

^^Yes, it is to fulfill a myth that immigrants form new EU members come to richer countries for benefits. However, I don't really know as well as vast majority of may compatriots how to apply for any benefit in such countries.

[Solarstone]

It’s simple, you move anywhere you like in the EU and claim benefits from the your country of origin...?