The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that Germany can refuse welfare benefits to EU migrants if they have never held a job in the country.
In a landmark ruling, the Luxembourg court announced on Tuesday that “economically inactive” migrants from other EU nations can be refused German unemployment benefits under certain conditions.
The case was prompted after Elisabeta Dano, a 25-year-old Romanian woman living in Leipzig, had her application for benefits refused. The local jobcentre argued that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the woman, who has lived in Germany since 2010, had ever actively looked for work.
After an appeal was rejected by a Leipzig social court, the case was transferred to the ECJ.
In its ruling, the ECJ emphasised that while EU migrants had the right of residence in another EU country for up to three months, the country is under no obligation to pay social benefits during that period. If migrants stay for more than three months but less than three years, right of residence is dependent on whether they have sufficient resources to support themselves or their family members.
The eagerly anticipated ruling could be interpreted as a victory, or a blow, for David Cameron. It is a victory in the sense that it supports the British government’s drive to curb benefit abuse by EU migrants. The British, Danish and Irish had voiced strong support for the German position in the dispute.
But it is also a defeat in the sense that the ruling means that these curbs can be achieved within the existing rules. Had the ruling gone the other way, it would have probably triggered a debate about reforming freedom of movement in Germany. Now, British calls for an overhaul of the existing systems are less likely to be heard.
The ruling was welcomed in British pro-European circles. The Liberal Democrat MEP Catherine Bearder said: “Today’s ruling shows that while EU free movement is non-negotiable, it is not an unfettered right. Liberal Democrats are clear that the freedom to live, work and study across the continent should not mean the freedom to claim. Safeguards can and should be put in place to prevent benefit tourism and abuse of the system.”
