CJEU's position on equal treatment of benefits for EU citizens in another member state - Case C-333/

The case: C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig

What is the position that the CJEU takes in relation to equal treatment regarding benefits of an EU citizen in another member state of the EU? Discuss in relation to the judgement in the C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig case. (750)

Mrs. Dano is a Romanian citizen who applied for job seekers? benefits in Germany. She has not worked in Germany, and is not looking for work either. She has not been trained in a profession and, to date, has not worked in Germany or Romania. She and her son have been residing since 2010 in Germany, where they live in the home of Ms Dano's sister, who provides for them. That is a 'Special non - contributory benefit'

The EU Citizen?s Rights Directive provides that EU citizens are entitled to equal treatment regarding benefits on the territory of another Member State, except 1. During their first three months of entry, even if they are workers 2. If they are jobseekers 3. If they are seeking student grants before five years residence.

Right of residence for up to three months 1. Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of up to three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport

Retention of the right of residence 1. Union citizens and their family members shall have the right of residence provided for in Article 6, as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.

Right of residence for more than three months 1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they:

(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or

(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or

(c) – are enrolled at a private or public establishment,

The directive prohibits economically inactive Union citizens from using the host Member State's welfare system to fund their means of subsistence.

A Member State can refuse 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 although they do not have sufficient resources to claim a right of residence.

If you do not have sufficient resources to meet your own needs and the needs of your family, you cannot claim a right of residence in a MS (here Germany) under the CRD. Therefore, you cannot invoke the principle of non-discrimination laid down by the directive (Article 24 of the CRD); the directive applies to workers, self employed persons, students and others who have sufficient resources.

1) workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State (and their families);

2) Those who are not workers BUT, they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State;

3) are enrolled at a private or public establishment during their academic programme

Family member" means (among others): (a) the spouse; Case C-673/16 Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigr?ri and Others The term „spouse? in EU Law includes spouses of the same sex. Although the Member States have the freedom whether or not to authorise marriage between persons of the same sex, they may not obstruct the freedom of residence of an EU citizen by refusing to grant his same-sex spouse, a national of a country that is not an EU Member State, a derived right of residence in their territory. (A Romanian national married with his same-sex partner of USA citizenship in Brussels and then moved to Romania, where the authorities did not recognise a right of residence to his USA partner due to the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage in Romania).