EU states can refuse benefits to migrants, top court rules

Mr_Red

The European Union’s highest court has ruled today that a Romanian woman seeking social welfare in Germany was not entitled to full social security benefits, in a ruling that is likely to have ramifications for the debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union.

The case concerned a 25 year-old Romanian woman, identified as Ms Dano, who has been living in Germany since at least 2010 and has had a child there, but is not seeking employment.

The European Court of Justice ruled today that “economically inactive EU citizens who go to another member state solely in order to obtain social assistance may be excluded from certain social benefits”.

It found that, under the EU directive on free movement, Ms Dano and her son could not claim a right of residence in Germany, as they do not have sufficient resources. Hence they “cannot invoke the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the directive”, the court found.

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

Ms Dano, who lives with her sister, is receiving child support benefits in Germany.

The debate over so-called “benefits tourism” has emerged as a key political issue in Britain ahead of next year’s general election.
British prime minister David Cameron’s suggestion earlier this year that a cap on migrants from the EU could be considered provoked a hostile response from senior EU figures, including German chancellor Angela Merkel, who argued that EU free movement rules are sacrosanct.

The debate over immigration has intensified within the EU over recent years, while the European Commission has criticised Britain for not properly implementing EU freedom of movement rules.
Concerns over immigration featured strongly in May’s European elections, with a number of fringe parties campaigning on an anti-immigration platform.

In France and Britain, anti-immigration parties the National Front and Ukip, respectively, topped the poll.

Speaking in Brussels this lunchtime, a European Commission spokeswoman said the commission welcomed the judgement, which “brings more clarity with regards to the rights of EU citizens and their family members” around access to assistance benefits when residing in another EU country.

Pointing out that member states can exclude non-active EU citizens who do not meet the conditions for right of residence due to the lack of sufficient resources, the spokeswoman said: “The European Commission has consistently stressed that free movement is the right to free circulation. It is not a right to freely access the member states’ social assistance systems, and the court confirms this today.”

I think this is excellent news for Ireland. It will weed out the people who arrive here just for the sake of benefits rather then contributing to the country

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-states-can-refuse-benefits-to-migrants-top-court-rules-1.1996456

BoJack Horseman

Shame it can't apply to Irish born people too.

Uncle Ruckus

Lord have mercy...

Nodin

Mr_Red wrote: »

I think this is excellent news for Ireland. It will weed out the people who arrive here just for the sake of benefits rather then Milking the Country

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-states-can-refuse-benefits-to-migrants-top-court-rules-1.1996456

For not the first time - You Cannot Arrive And Claim.

uch

About time

wp_rathead

Nodin wrote: »

For not the first time - You Cannot Arrive And Claim.

ahh but free prams and something something
:pac:

drumswan

Mr_Red wrote: »

I think this is excellent news for Ireland. It will weed out the people who arrive here just for the sake of benefits rather then contributing to the country]

But you need two years PRSI contributions to claim benefits here...

Nodin

wprathead wrote: »

ahh but free prams and something something
:pac:

Free water for being black.

BoJack Horseman

Looking at the story it sticks out that the Romanian woman wasn't seeking work.

Would this have never arisen had she declared herself actively seeking work?

munchkin_utd

Mr_Red wrote: »

I think this is excellent news for Ireland. It will weed out the people who arrive here just for the sake of benefits rather then contributing to the country

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-states-can-refuse-benefits-to-migrants-top-court-rules-1.1996456

em, the prescident of Ireland and Denmark having systems in place against social welfare tourism helped germany get the ruling.

Which shows that Ireland is doing something right, if only measures against welfare tourism
(which ironically came in to stop german hippies having a permanent holiday in Ireland at the taxpayers expense IIRC.)

Mr_Red

Mr_Red wrote: »

I think this is excellent news for Ireland. It will weed out the people who arrive here just for the sake of benefits rather then contributing to the country

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-states-can-refuse-benefits-to-migrants-top-court-rules-1.1996456

Or they could just say they are seeking employment.

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Or they could just say they are seeking employment.

Presumably they would have to prove that - jobs applied for, interviews attended etc

Victor

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Looking at the story it sticks out that the Romanian woman wasn't seeking work.

Would this have never arisen had she declared herself actively seeking work?

No, the freedom of movement principle (and most visas) is dependent on having enough resources to support yourself, whether through employment, cash in the bank or other means.

RobYourBuilder

drumswan wrote: »

But you need two years PRSI contributions to claim benefits here...

To claim contributory based non means tested benefit; Jobseekers Benefits. To claim a non contributory means tested benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, you need to be habitually resident. Work history is immaterial.

Gatling

About time EU less than 2 years ago an eastern European lady took the uk to court so she could claim the state pension depite never working a day in the uk in her life ,
She moved to the uk primarily to get a pension and social housing ,

Be interested to see how this plays out now in the future

RobYourBuilder

wprathead wrote: »

ahh but free prams and something something
:pac:

I don't know why you think that is so funny. In 2012, €951 million was spent on Supplementary Welfare Allowance. €70 million of that was spent on Exceptional Needs Payments, €2.1 million of which, was spent on prams and buggies.

New parents, Irish and foreign, do get free buggies. It's not a myth. It's there in black and white on welfare.ie. Plenty of people get them provided by the state.

RobYourBuilder

BojackHorseman wrote: »

Shame it can't apply to Irish born people too.

It does. The reason why this woman had her benefit cut, was not because she was an immigrant. But because she didn't meet the qualifying criteria to receive the benefit; to be actively searching for employment. Her nationality is immaterial. It would be the same for a German who was on a Jobseeker type payment but not actively searching for work.

In Ireland, if one is on Jobseekers and not able to provide proof that they are actively searching for employment, social welfare can gradually reduce their payments in increments.

darkpagandeath

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

I don't know why you think that is so funny. In 2012, €951 million was spent on Supplementary Welfare Allowance. €70 million of that was spent on Exceptional Needs Payments, €2.1 million of which, was spent on prams and buggies.

New parents, Irish and foreign, do get free buggies. It's not a myth. It's there in black and white on welfare.ie. Plenty of people get them provided by the state.

Yup and they just leave them at bus stops because you know they will just be given a new one. Although why would they be getting the bus with the high life they are living surely they get taxis everywhere.

looking_around

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yup and they just leave them at bus stops because you know they will just be given a new one. Although why would they be getting the bus with the high life they are living surely they get taxis everywhere.

actually I know someone, who's pram was simply dirty(very very much so) and she managed to claim for a new one rather than ever clean the pram.

now you can say whatever you like, but this woman has never worked a day in her life, probably never will. She doesn't see the point.

I'm not saying she lives the high life, but then again, probably would if she knew how to manage her money.

People on welfare should have to take money management courses.

I was doing pretty darn well, renting a one bedroom flat, while on disability. (and no, don't give me crap she has a child, she's paying council rates. )

Chunners

About bloody time, this **** of arriving at a countries doorstep and expecting them to support you has gone on way to long now. America and Australia would never let anyone away with that crap and begging does not count as a career either!

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Free water for being black.

8 posts in before you start trying to turn it into a race issue?

Jesus wept.

Nodin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

To claim contributory based non means tested benefit; Jobseekers Benefits. To claim a non contributory means tested benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, you need to be habitually resident. Work history is immaterial.

Work history is taken into consideration with regard to habitual residency.

"The applicant's employment record in Ireland and elsewhere and in particular the nature of any previous occupations and plans for the future are relevant."
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Habitual-Residence-Condition--Guidelines-for-Deciding-Offic.aspx#7.3

RobYourBuilder

Where the person is in that employment for at least a month or in self-employment for at least 6 months, the person will normally satisfy the habitual residence condition, while the employment is still ongoing. (See below for further details on self-employment).

So a months employment is enough to satisfy the HBC. Not two years. Interesting.

Nodin wrote: »

Work history is taken into consideration with regard to habitual residency.

"The applicant's employment record in Ireland and elsewhere and in particular the nature of any previous occupations and plans for the future are relevant."
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Habitual-Residence-Condition--Guidelines-for-Deciding-Offic.aspx#7.3

Cheers for that.

Nodin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

So a months employment is enough to satisfy the HBC. Not two years. Interesting.



Cheers for that.

You'll note the present tense "is".

RobYourBuilder

Nodin wrote: »

You'll note the present tense "is".

Yep. I can read. According to the link, if one is in employment after one month, the HBC criteria is satisfied. Does it get reset if the employer decides to not permanently employ them after the probation period of three months is finished? Are they then entitled to claim?

Looks like it.

Nodin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Yep. I can read. According to the link, if one is in employment after one month, the HBC criteria is satisfied. Does it get reset if the employer decides to not permanently employ them after the probation period of three months is finished? Are they then entitled to claim?

Looks like it.

Not nessecarily given that a number of factors are taken into account, but don't let that stop you jumping to conclusions.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

For not the first time - You Cannot Arrive And Claim.

Yes you can, supplemantary welfare payment. Read up

RobYourBuilder

Where the person is in that employment for at least a month or in self-employment for at least 6 months, the person will normally satisfy the habitual residence condition, while the employment is still ongoing.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes you can, supplemantary welfare payment. Read up

A supplementary welfare payment is a one off, and they usually want receipts. You can't live off it.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

A supplementary welfare payment is a one off, and they usually want receipts. You can't live off it.

That's not the point he was making. He contradicted your fallacy.

Gatling

Now if your arrive and go in to direct provision your get fed .housed ( in a center) clothed .free transport some places run regular shuttle buses.and of you have kids they get buggies .

Habitual residence isn't even a rule more a guide line there's no even legislation on it to the best of my knowledge .

Wonder will they use this ruling to exclude people from social housing

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

That's not the point he was making. He contradicted your fallacy.

Dragging in the supplementary paymen is in itself a fallacy. Nobody is living off it or travelling to claim it.

Gatling

Nodin wrote: »

A supplementary welfare payment is a one off, and they usually want receipts. You can't live off it.

It's not a one off at all you get Swp while a claim is been processed you can easily live off it

Holsten

Gatling wrote: »

Now if your arrive and go in to direct provision your get fed .housed ( in a center) clothed .free transport some places run regular shuttle buses.and of you have kids they get buggies .

Habitual residence isn't even a rule more a guide line there's no even legislation on it to the best of my knowledge .

Wonder will they use this ruling to exclude people from social housing

Those direct provision places are horrible places to live, they are basically prisons.

Remember you're not even legally allowed to work if you're in direct provision.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Dragging in the supplementary paymen is in itself a fallacy. Nobody is living off it or travelling to claim it.

How do you know?

How stringent is the proof required to prove one has worked or lived here?
even for the laughable month required?

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

Now if your (.........)they get buggies .

Asylum seekers are a different issue. As ever I suggest that if you don't like the notion of asylum, you start a campaign to have the state withdraw from that section of the Geneva conventions.

RobYourBuilder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yup and they just leave them at bus stops because you know they will just be given a new one. Although why would they be getting the bus with the high life they are living surely they get taxis everywhere.

What are you on about? Do you think that I am making this up? Minister Burton released the breakdown of Special Needs Payments for 2011 and 2012 sometime last year. In 2011, 10,942 got cheques for prams. In 2012, 9,413 did so.

People get free prams. It's a statement of fact.

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

It's not a one off at all you get Swp while a claim is been processed you can easily live off it

I was confusing it with another payment.

However you have to satisfy habitual residency for the one you're on about.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/supplementary_welfare_allow.html

reprise

Holsten wrote: »

Those direct provision places are horrible places to live, they are basically prisons.

I suspect the inmates of Mountjoy and other such holiday camps might disagree.

Holsten wrote: »

Remember you're not even legally allowed to work if you're in direct provision.

There are no citizens of EU states in direct provision.

Gatling

Nodin wrote: »

I was confusing it with another payment.

Yes indeed .

RobYourBuilder

Holsten wrote: »

Those direct provision places are horrible places to live, they are basically prisons.

Remember you're not even legally allowed to work if you're in direct provision.

Which ones? The largest one in the state, Mosney, has gyms, computer rooms, teaching rooms,etc. and the residents live in apartment like accommodation with all mod cons. Looked pretty sweet, tbh. Granted, some of the others are kips. It's a mixed bag.

TV3 recently did a feature on life as an asylum seeker in such places. It's available to watch on their website. Give it a whirl.

reprise

Gatling wrote: »

Yes indeed .

I'm impressed he can keep up with them all, and then pretend they don't exist.

Holsten

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Which ones? The largest one in the state, Mosney, has gyms, computer rooms, teaching rooms,etc. and the residents live in apartment like accommodation with all mod cons. Looked pretty sweet, tbh. Granted, some of the others are kips. It's a mixed bag.

TV3 recently did a feature on life as an asylum seeker in such places. It's available to watch on their website. Give it a whirl.

Lissywollen Direct Provision Centre in Athlone
Ashbourne House Hotel direct provision centre, Cork.
The Kinsale Road Asylum Centre, Co Cork.

Just a few with a quick search.

I'll check that out.

reprise

Holsten wrote: »

Lissywollen Direct Provision Centre in Athlone
Ashbourne House Hotel direct provision centre, Cork.
The Kinsale Road Asylum Centre, Co Cork.

Just a few with a quick search.

I'll check that out.

Check out the nationalities of the "prisoners" while you are at it.

Galwayguy35

drumswan wrote: »

But you need two years PRSI contributions to claim benefits here...

So what are the Roma living on then?

Frank O. Pinion

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what are the Roma living on then?

Your tears?

Galwayguy35

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Your tears?

Wow Frank your debating skills astound me.

reprise

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Your tears?

If only, don't need bailouts or new taxes to fund them.

IsaacWunder

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what are the Roma living on then?

Self employed (beggars).

conorh91

Chunners wrote: »

About bloody time, this **** of arriving at a countries doorstep and expecting them to support you has gone on way to long now.

It's not "about time". The ECJ is merely re-stating a rule that has already been in existence, and confirming that the rule is not contrary to the laws of the European Union.

Ireland, the UK and Germany have always been unusual in granting allowances to new arrivals from within the EU, but that's a policy issue for the respective governments. It's our choice to be generous with welfare.

Holsten wrote: »

Those direct provision places are horrible places to live, they are basically prisons.

No they are not. Residents are free to come and go, to associate among themselves, and to leave the system.

doc11

drumswan wrote: »

But you need two years PRSI contributions to claim benefits here...

one prsi contribution in ireland and based on you non irish social insurance you can claim irish benefits and after they run out claim jobseekers allowance as you can then can settle the HRC