165 / 536
151
CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ
THE SCOPE AND THE FUTURE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT…
the nationals of Member States. Indeed, federal citizenship in the United States really
came true when all federated States agreed not only on the free movement of the poor
citizens of the other States but also on their access to social assistance (Schonberger,
2007).
44
But this would certainly require large efforts from the Member States and
a change of attitude. It has already been proved that solidarity in times of crisis
strengthens all kinds of union, while an individualistic approach leads to disunion.
It is time to think beyond the question of access or not to social assistance for
economically inactive Union citizens. It is time to think if we want or do not want
to continue the process of integration, the principle of equality of treatment being
just one element of it. If we are favorable to further integration of the EU, we will
accept sacrifices in the name of the good of the Union, believing that solidarity
during crisis unites and strengthens relationships.
2.2.2 Towards a stricter limitation of freedom of movement and equality
of treatment like some Member States are requiring?
Member States have welcomed the Dano judgment with great relief, in particular
those which are trying to cope with an increasingly disgruntled home front, feeding
on nationalist and anti-European emotions (Vonk, 2014).
45
Beyond the Member
States’ fear, beyond the last cases of Dano and Alimanovic, beyond the derogations
of Article 24, there is the fear of the economically inactive Union citizen being an
unreasonable burden for the host Member States.
Is that fear reasonable? It seems that it is not, according to a study of the European
Commission in numerous Member States from 2013
46
and confirmed by a study
of the European Parliament.
47
The first study shows that the majority of Union
citizens on the move are net contributors for the host Member State and abusers of
law are very exceptional. The second study underlines the fact that benefit tourism
is indeed characterized by claims which are not backed up by statistical evidence.
Nevertheless, this fear founded or not, has to be taken seriously in order to avoid
massive expulsions of Union citizens by their host Member States, as it has been the
case in France or Belgium.
48
44
SCHONBERGER C., European Citizenship as Federal Citizenship. Some Citizenship lessons of
Comparative Federalism,
Revue européenne de Droit Public
, Vol. 19, Nb. 1, 2007, pp. 61-81.
45
VONK G., EU-freedom of movement: No protection for the stranded poor -Case-note on C-333/13,
Elisabeta Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig.
46
See DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, A Fact finding analysis on the impact on Member
States’ social security systems of the entitlements of non-active intra EU migrants to special non-
contributory cash benefits and healthcare granted on the basis of residence, 14 October 2013 et
C. Dustmann, T. Fratinni, The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK, CDP No 22/13.
47
POPTCHEVA E.-M., Freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens- Access to social benefits,
European Parliamentary Research Service, European Union 2014.
48
See MASLOWSKI S., The Expulsion of European Union Citizens from the Host Member State: Legal