Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v. Jovanna García-Nieto and Others - (25 Feb 2016)

ECJ ruling to curb “welfare tourism”

Human Rights

The European Court of Justice confirmed that a Member State of the European Union may exclude nationals of other Member States from certain social benefits, such as jobseekers allowance, and children’s benefits during the first three months of residence.

In the instant case, a Spanish family had relocated to Germany in the hopes of finding employment. Finding only nominal work in the country, the family applied for subsistence benefits within three months of moving. Their application was refused for not meeting the minimum residency criteria and none in the family having the status of a worker or self-employed person, reliant almost entirely on the Employment Centre. Hearing the matter, a ‘Higher Social Court’ in Germany referred the matter to the European Court of Justice. Specifically, it raised questions about the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation 883/2004 of the EU and exclusions under Article 70. The Court held that national legislation could exclude citizens of other Member States from deriving benefit to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’. Qualifications to being able to receive such benefits, such as having the status of a worker or self-employed person, could not be prevented from being imposed.

Tags : WELFARE TOURISM   EU   RESIDENCY   BENFITS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved