Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  172 / 536 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 172 / 536 Next Page
Page Background

158

VÁCLAV ŠMEJKAL

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ

be considered as a certain culmination of this trend to expand citizenship rights

that were derived directly from the EU Treaty.

23

The CJEU emphasized there that

an EU citizen, even if his stay in another Member State did not correspond to

the conditions laid down by EU law (then Directive 90/364,

24

predecessor of the

current Directive 2004/38) but still legally residing in the host Member States from

the perspective of its own national law, had the right to equal treatment and may not

be discriminated against in access to social assistance to which local citizens were

entitled in a similar situation (paras 39-40, 43-44).

In parallel to this, the CJEU also advocated a broad definition of the EU-worker.

This definition also covered employees with a contract for just a 10 week period,

25

or for a working week shortened to 10 or 12 hours.

26

The CJEU even did not rule

out the possibility to recognize as genuine and effective employment a job for only

5.5 hours per week.

27

And quite recently, in 2013, in its decision L.N.,

28

the CJEU

confirmed that the motivation for taking part-time work in another Member State

was irrelevant and might stem from a plan to obtain maintenance aid for full-time

studies in that Member State. The only condition in these borderline cases remains

whether EU-migrants pursue effective and genuine employment activities (para 47).

Even poorly paid EU workers (and their family members) have always been entitled

in the host Member State to equal treatment regarding also their access to social

assistance.

One can easily understand the growing resentment of several “old” Member

States, especially after the EU’s enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe in 2004

and 2007 (when not all “old” Member States exploited the possibility to temporarily

limit free migration) and then under the pressure of the financial and economic

crisis, to grant to underpaid migrant EU workers and their family members (and in

some cases also to job-seekers, pensioners and students) social benefits from their

national welfare system to which these beneficiaries contributed little or nothing.

The CJEU has become frequently blamed for “overstretching the Treaty provisions

on freedom of movement“

29

to the detriment of the functionality of national welfare

systems.

30

23

Case C-456/02

Michel Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS)

EU:C:2004:488.

24

Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence repealed by Directive

2004/38 26-27.

25

Case C-413/01

Franca Ninni-Orasche v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst

: EU:C:

2003:600.

26

Cases C-139/85

R. H. Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

EU:C:1986:223 and C-444/93

Ursula

Megner and Hildegard Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz

EU:C:1995:442.

27

Case C-14/09

Hava Genc v Land Berlin

EU:C:2010:57.

28

Case C-46/12

L. N. v Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte

EU:C:2013:97.

29

POPTCHEVA (n 11).

30

BLAUBERGER, SCHMIDT (n 11) 2.