172 / 536
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.