Search

How to determine whether mobile Union citizens have a right to social assistance? Research has shown how Western European Member States have made efforts to restrict Union citizens’ access to their welfare systems over the past decade, whereby lawful residence has increasingly become the linchpin for entitlement. Member States have responded strikingly differently, however, to the complex administrative puzzle of dealing with open borders, the ability to verify lawful residence and the right to social assistance over time. This article makes an analytical and empirical contribution to existing literature by asking how Member States adjust their welfare/migration administrations to fit the Union’s free movement regime and what implications this has for Union citizens. Based upon comparative case studies into the administration of social assistance rights in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, the article develops a typology of three different models of administering Union citizens’ access to the welfare state: the form, signal and delegation models. Demonstrating how bureaucratic design impacts the stratification of social rights in the Member States in different ways, the article concludes that studying alternative administrative models offers important insights into the functioning of territorial welfare states in open border regimes.

Die vorliegende Bachelorarbeit befasst sich anhand einer Literaturrecherche mit folgender Forschungsfrage: ‚Wie gestalten sich Beziehungsdynamiken in einer heterosexuellen Ehegemeinschaft, wenn die Ehefrau von Gewalt betroffen ist und einen vom Ehemann abhängigen Aufenthaltstitel hat?‘ Innerhalb dieser Arbeit findet eine allgemeine und migrationsspezifische Auseinandersetzung der verschiedenen Beziehungsdynamiken in einer Gewaltbeziehung statt. Die Arbeit zeigt ein komplexes und individuell verschiedenes Wechselspiel der Beziehungsdynamiken auf, die vom sozialen Umfeld sowie der Gesellschaft beeinflusst werden. Die Beziehungsdynamiken und daraus resultierenden Abhängigkeiten beeinflussen die Lebensbedingungen und Trennungsabsichten der gewaltbetroffenen Frau. Deshalb ist eine genauere Auseinandersetzung im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs sowie in sozialen Einrichtungen notwendig, um in der Sozialen Arbeit zielführende Interventionen setzen zu können. This Bachelor's thesis deals with the following research question on the basis of a literature review: ‘How are relationship dynamics shaped in a heterosexual marital union when the wife is affected by violence and has a residence title dependent on the husband?’ Within this work, a general and migration-specific examination of the different relationship dynamics in a violent marriage takes place. The work shows a complex and individually different interplay of relationship dynamics that are influenced by the social environment and society. The relationship dynamics and the resulting dependencies influence the living conditions and separation intentions of the woman affected by violence. Therefore, a more detailed discussion in the social discourse as well as in social institutions is necessary in order to be able to set goal-oriented interventions in social work.

This article deals with the conditions and limitations to the right to reside and of freedom of movement recognized to third country nationals who are family members of an EU citizen. With its decision in the Zambrano case, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that the status of citizen of the European Union produces its effects, initially limited to cross-border situations, also in purely domestic ones. Children with the citizenship of the European Union who are dependent of a parent with third country nationality would be forced to leave the territory of the European Union in case of refusal of their parent’s application for the right of residence. They would thus be deprived of the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as citizens of the European Union. The scope of said rights as recognized to a third country national member of the family of a citizen of the European Union depends on the determination of the substance of the rights conferred by the status as citizen of the European Union. The post-Zambrano case-law will be examined in order to determine the extent and limitation thereof.

This comparative research project looks at the co-operation between state and social organizations (SOs) in China and Germany. It focusses on social service delivery in the area of integration of migrating populations with special attention to the fields of education, employment, vulnerable groups and social assistance (incl. legal aid) as a crosscutting issue to all of the fields. Within this subject area, the project wants to identify different models of state-SO co-operation and analyze which models are successful and why and where this co-operation is problematic. It aims to capture the different models of co-operation in Germany and China, to analyze and compare the underlying structures and to show potentialities for development.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2018 3(2), 911-922, European Forum Insight of 21 June 2018, I. Introduction. - II. The dispute at the main proceeding and the preliminary question. - III. The Opinion of AG Bot. - IV. The CJEU ruling and the enhanced application of Directive 2004/38. - V. Non-discrimination and right to family life: the marginalisationof fundamental rights. - V.1. EU citizenship and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality: two sides of the same coin. - V.2. The CJEU vis-à-vis the "right to family life": limiting or enhancing its potential? - VI. The additional value of the Toufik Lounes ruling: its implications for Brexit. - VII. Concluding remarks., This Insight tackles a recent judgment of the CJEU, Toufik Lounes (Court of Justice, judgment of 14 November 2017, case C-165/16, Toufik Lounes v. Secretary of State for the Home Department), where the CJEU was asked to rule on the case of a EU national, Ms García Omazábal, who had exercised her free movement rights, later acquiring the citizenship of the host State while also retaining her nationality of origin. The Court has further investigated the scope ratione personae of Directive 2004/38 and Art. 21, para. 1, TFEU, so to clarify whether, in the scenario above, the EU national and her third-country national spouse could still be considered "beneficiaries" under Directive 2004/38. The CJEU answered as follows: while Directive 2004/38 is not applicable in the situation above, Art. 21, para. 1, TFEU shall instead be applied so as to prevent the EU national holding a dual citizenship to be treated less favourably than a EU national having the citizenship of his country of origin only, and therefore having the EU national's right to family life unreasonably disrupted. Against this backdrop, the Insight first highlights the merits of the decision, by also investigating its positive effects within the Brexit process. Secondly, it discloses a main shortcoming that is likely to weaken the overall protection granted to EU citizens, i.e. the CJEU choice to disregard the connection between the provisions on the EU citizenship and the respect of fundamental rights.

The aim of the following article is to find whether the European Court of Justice has reacted in its recent rulings to the growing reluctance of many Europeans and their political representations towards quasi-automatic rights of migrating of European Union citizens to move to another Member State and enjoy there the benefits of social policy on equal footing with this country´s nationals. The result of the referendum held in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016 regarding the UK’s membership in the EU demonstrates the importance of the issue in question. The authors analyse recent case law of the European Court of Justice in comparison with its earlier case law regarding the access of Union citizens to social assistance and the status of third country nationals as family members of European Union citizens. The authors have come to the conclusion that so far, the European Court of Justice tightened the interpretation of the European Union law in force in the area of welfare tourists’ rights unlike in the case of economically active migrants. First, Martinez-Sala, Grzelczyk, Bidar, Trojani and other judgments are mentioned to remind the previous approach of the European Court of Justice, based on the principle of broad solidarity between Member States. Second, this approach is confronted with more recent case law, i. e. Dano, Alimanovic, Garcia-Nieto, Commission against the United Kingdom. In those cases, the court did not require the host Member States to recognize the value of EU citizenship as an individual's “fundamental status” nor to show a degree of solidarity. The court stood for the uncomplicated and rigorous application of Directive 2004/38. When it comes to third country nationals as family members of Union citizens, their status it is not only confirmed but even extended. The authors analyse briefly earlier case law of the European Court of Justice, namely the Singh, O. and B., Metock, Zambrano and Dereci cases. These judgments are characteristic of broad interpretation of Directive 2004/38 and provisions of the Treaty on EU citizenship in favour of the family members. Protection of fundamental rights also plays an important part. Other than in the case of social tourism, there has been no change in the approach of the European Court of Justice. On the contrary, in Marín, Chavez-Vilchez, Lounes or Coman judgments, the European Court of Justice confirms its previous line of reasoning and further develops it. Nevertheless, the authors hold the view that the European Court of Justice should more carefully balance and try to reconcile free movement rights, fundamental rights, as well as the sovereign rights of Member States in order to contribute to the prevention of European disintegration.

Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea (I sezione). Sentenza del 27 giugno 2018, causa C-246/17, Ibrahima Diallo contro Belgio

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2018 3(1), 459-460, European Forum Highlight of 30 May 2018, This Highlight mainly focuses on the interpretation of Art. 20 TFEU related to the protection of the right of residence of European citizens and their family members, having specifically regard to what the Court already held in the Zambrano case law. In particular, in Chavez-Vilchez case (judgment of 10 May 2017, case C-133/15) - in which the majority of the applicants had not exercised their right to free movement - the Court of Justice has specified, in accordance with the notion of the effectiveness of Union citizenship, the conditions under which Art. 20 TFEU could apply when it is not demonstrated the lack of capacity of the other parent - EU citizen - to assume the responsibility of the care of the child.

Aunque la asistencia social está expresamente excluida del Reglamento 883/2004 sobre coordinación de los sistemas de seguridad social de los Estados miembros, la propia norma regula unas prestaciones económicas que, por su naturaleza, participan de caracteres tanto de asistencia social como de seguridad social. Respecto de las mismas, el principio de igualdad de trato y no discriminación por razón de la nacionalidad va a encontrar serias matizaciones o restricciones en combinación con los requisitos para disfrutar del derecho de residencia en otro Estado miembro que contempla la Directiva 2008/34, en especial cuando se trata de ciudadanos que sin estar realizando una actividad por cuenta ajena mantienen el estatuto de trabajadores, o que son únicamente demandantes de empleo, incluso cuando pierden esta condición Although social assistance is specifically excluded of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, however it regulates cash benefits which have characteristics both of the social security and of social assistance. Related to those benefits, the requirements to gain the right of residence in a different Member State according Directive 2004/38, will restrict the principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality. This happens especially for those citizens who retain the status of worker despite not being workers, or those who are only job seekers even if they lose this status.

Comunicación premiada por el Comité Científico de las XXXV Jornadas Universitarias Andaluzas de Derecho del Trabajo y Relaciones Laborales: "Libre circulación de trabajadores en la UE. 30 años en la Unión", Huelva, 15 y 16 de diciembre de 2016, con el "Premio a la Mejor Comunicación", Pendiente de próxima publicación en la colección "Monografías de Temas Laborales" del CARL, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla, Con la STJUE de 14 de juno de 2016, Comisión v. Reino Unido, C-308/14 se confirma la tendencia a restringir el acceso de ciudadanos comunitarios desplazados "económicamente inactivos" a prestaciones sociales, en este caso, a prestacionesde Seguridad Social, al exigir derecho legal de residencia conforme a la Directiva 2004/38/CE. La Comisión Europea se suma a esta tendencia, al haber acogido y hecho suyo el fallo de esta sentencia, tal y como se refleja en su Comunicación de 13 de diciembre ce 2016 por la que propone modificar la normativa europea de coordinación de los sistemas de Seguridad Social., The judgment of the CJUE of June 14, 2016, Commission v. United Kingdom, C-308/14 confirms the limitations concernings access to social benefits (in this case, social security benefefits) for "economically inactive" EU mobile citizens, by requiring legal residence Directive 2004/38/EC. The European Commission joins this trend, having accepted and endorsed the judgment of this judgment, as reflected in its Proposal of December 13, 2016 for a amending regulations on the coordination of Social Security systems., Consejo Andaluz de Relaciones Laborales (CARL), Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio

Comunicación premiada por el Comité Científico de las XXXV Jornadas Universitarias Andaluzas de Derecho del Trabajo y Relaciones Laborales: "Libre circulación de trabajadores en la UE. 30 años en la Unión", Huelva, 15 y 16 de diciembre de 2016, con el "Premio a la Mejor Comunicación" Pendiente de próxima publicación en la colección "Monografías de Temas Laborales" del CARL, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla Con la STJUE de 14 de juno de 2016, Comisión v. Reino Unido, C-308/14 se confirma la tendencia a restringir el acceso de ciudadanos comunitarios desplazados "económicamente inactivos" a prestaciones sociales, en este caso, a prestacionesde Seguridad Social, al exigir derecho legal de residencia conforme a la Directiva 2004/38/CE. La Comisión Europea se suma a esta tendencia, al haber acogido y hecho suyo el fallo de esta sentencia, tal y como se refleja en su Comunicación de 13 de diciembre ce 2016 por la que propone modificar la normativa europea de coordinación de los sistemas de Seguridad Social. The judgment of the CJUE of June 14, 2016, Commission v. United Kingdom, C-308/14 confirms the limitations concernings access to social benefits (in this case, social security benefefits) for "economically inactive" EU mobile citizens, by requiring legal residence Directive 2004/38/EC. The European Commission joins this trend, having accepted and endorsed the judgment of this judgment, as reflected in its Proposal of December 13, 2016 for a amending regulations on the coordination of Social Security systems. Consejo Andaluz de Relaciones Laborales (CARL) Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio

The harmonisation of the national legislation with the communitarian one, being an essential component in the process of Romania ’s integration in the European Union, imposed an approach of the new principles and rules even in the communitarian area. New regulations concerning the exertion of the right of free circulation and residence within the territory of Member States by EU citizens and members of their families, the right of permanent residence within the territory of Member States by EU citizens and members of their families, and the limits set for the above rights for reasons of public order, public safety or public health.

Studiens syfte var att undersöka hur socialsekreterare tolkar begreppet uppehållsrätt när EU-medborgare ansöker om försörjningsstöd. Intersektionellt perspektiv användes för att belysa maktförhållanden mellan socialsekreterare som representatner för svenska myndigheter och klienter med utländsk härkomst. I studien användes domar från svenska förvaltningsrätter som analyserades med kvalitativ diskursanalys. Resultat kategoriserades in i kategorier som rörde socialsekreteres tolkningar av uppehållsrätten, omständigheter avgörande för bedömning av uppehållsrätten och socialsekreterares tolkningar av EU-medborgares rätt till försörjningsstöd. Data om EU-medborgares medborgarskap och kön samlades in för att undersöka deras eventuella påverkan på utfall av ansökan om försörjningsstöd. Analys av resultat visade signifikant inkonsekvens i såväl socialsekreterares tolkningar av uppehållsrätten som i tillämpning av relevanta lagar. EU-medborgares rättigheter till försörjningsstöd nekades på grund av att EU-medborgare bedömdes vara "ekonomiskt icke aktiva personer" eller inte ansågs ha "en verklig möjlighet till att få anställning". Varken EU-medborgares medborgarskap eller kön kunde kopplas till utfall av deras ansökan om försörjningsstöd. The purpose of this study was to examine how social workers interpret right of residence when EU-citizens apply for social assistance by claiming their residential rights. The intersectional perspective was used as a theoretical approach in order to illustrate power relationship between social workers as representatives for Swedish authorities and clients of foreign origin. Using appeal documents from Swedish administrative courts as a study material and a qualitative discourse analysis as a data collection method the results were classified into categories concerning social workers’ interpretations of right of residence, circumstances considered by social workers as crucial for right of residence and social workers interpretations of EU-citizens’ entitlement to social assistance. Data regarding EU-citizens’ nationalities and gender were collected in order to identify their possible influence on outcome of their applications. Analysis of results identified a significant inconsistency in social workers’ interpretations of right of residence as well as in application of the law. EU-citizens’ entitlement to social assistance was denied on terms of EU-citizens being “economically inactive persons” or not having “a real chance to get an employment”. Neither EU-citizens nationalities nor gender could be linked to outcomes of their applications for social assistance.

Este artículo, resultado de investigación¹, presenta una reflexión a la luz de las normas del DIDH y de la jurisprudencia de los sistemas universal, europeo e interamericano, en relación con la existencia de derechos que pueden ser considerados una limitación a la potestad soberana de los Estados en la definición de su política migratoria. Se aborda el principio de igualdad y no discriminación en favor de los extranjeros, la discrecionalidad de los Estados para la definición de sus políticas migratorias y se analizan derechos que pueden constituir limitaciones a esta soberanía. This article presents the results of a reflection made under the International Human Rights law, the European and Inter-American human rights protection systems, and the Universal law, all in relation with any rights that may be considered a limitation of the sovereign power of states to define their migration policy. Also, it deals with the principle of equality and non-discrimination of foreigners, the discretion of States to define their migration policies, and analyzes that this principles may constitute a limitation to the sovereignty of states.