''Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig'' (2014
C‑333/13
is an

EU law European Union law is a system of Supranational union, supranational Law, laws operating within the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). It has grown over time since the 1952 founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, to promote ...

case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.

Facts

Ms Dano and her son Florin,

Romania Romania is a country located at the crossroads of Central Europe, Central, Eastern Europe, Eastern and Southeast Europe. It borders Ukraine to the north and east, Hungary to the west, Serbia to the southwest, Bulgaria to the south, Moldova to ...

n nationals, claimed an entitlement to unemployment benefits at the

Leipzig Leipzig (, ; ; Upper Saxon: ; ) is the most populous city in the States of Germany, German state of Saxony. The city has a population of 628,718 inhabitants as of 2023. It is the List of cities in Germany by population, eighth-largest city in Ge ...

Social Court, after being denied by the Jobcenter Leipzig. She was not seeking employment, had no training and had not worked in

Germany Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany, is a country in Central Europe. It lies between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea to the north and the Alps to the south. Its sixteen States of Germany, constituent states have a total popu ...

or Romania before, but had lived in Germany since November 2010 at her sister’s home. Ms Dano received €184 per month in child benefits and €133 per month for maintenance payments. The German law on ''Grundsicherung'' denied help to people who enter purely for social assistance or while searching for employment. The Social Code Book II ('' Sozialgesetzbuch II'') said a person must be ‘capable of earning a living’ although the code as a whole was ‘to enable the beneficiaries to lead a life in keeping with human dignity’. It excluded ‘foreign nationals whose right of residence arises solely out of the search for employment and their family members’.

Judgment

Advocate General Opinion

AG Wathelet advised that Ms Dano should not be entitled to social assistance. 131. ‘It serves to prevent persons exercising their right to free movement without intending to integrate themselves from becoming a burden on the social assistance system... In other words, it serves to prevent abuse and a certain form of ‘benefit tourism’.’

Court of Justice

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held Ms Dano did not have sufficient resources and could not claim a right of residence in Germany. Therefore, they could not invoke the principle of non-discrimination in the Directive and Regulation. The Citizens Rights Directive article 24(2) did not require granting social assistance in the first three months of residence. The right to equal treatment depends on ‘residing on the basis of this Directive’. Under article 7(1)(b) that requires one to ‘have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system’. For residence between three months and five years, economically inactive persons should have sufficient resources of their own to prevent a host member state’s welfare system being used as a means of subsistence. A member state should be able to refuse social assistance to economically inactive citizens. Domestic law can exclude migrants from ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ although they are granted to nationals of the host member state who are in the same situation. The

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) enshrines certain political, social, and economic rights for European Union (EU) citizens and residents into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly procla ...

(CFR) did not apply, because when member states put conditions on benefits and their extent, they are not implementing EU law.

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References