WITHDRAWAL OF RESIDENCY UNDER EU LAW
Sufficient resources criteria
Persons who are self-sufficient are able to establish that they have ‘sufficient resources’ as per 7(b) of EU Citizens Directive so as to not become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system. Sufficient resources are vaguely defined in the Citizens Directive and do not take account of the drastic differences in the welfare standards across the Member States of the EU. A person from Eastern Europe, therefore may not be able to show that he or she has sufficient resources when residing in a country such as the UK where the level of subsistence is drastically higher. This is a criticism in relation to the Citizens Directive which also leaves room for the host Member States to lay down their own levels of what they consider amounts to sufficient resources.
The Citizens Directive states:
‘Member States may not lay down a fixed amount which they regard as ‘sufficient resources’, but they must take into account the personal situation of the person concerned.’[106]
The amount of sufficient resources, which are vaguely described ‘shall not be higher than the threshold below which nationals of the host Member State become eligible for social assistance […]’.[107]
It should be noted that lack of sufficient resources alone will not suffice so as to refuse a right of residence for the purposes of preventing migrants from accessing social assistance.[108] Thus, expulsion cannot ‘be the automatic consequence of a Union Citizens or his or her family member's recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State’.[109]
Furthermore, expulsion may not be justified, as per Article 28 on two grounds, firstly on the grounds of public policy or public security and secondly for lack of sufficient resources. However, recital 23 of the same Directive also states that an expulsion measure on the grounds of public policy or public security may ‘seriously harm’ Citizens who have ‘genuinely integrated’ into the host Member State. If such a measure is resorted to, it must be in accordance with the ‘principle of proportionality to take account of the degree of integration of the persons concerned, the length of their residence in the host Member State, their age, state of health, family and economic situation and the links with their country of origin.’ [110]
i) Unreasonable burden criteria
In order to withdraw residence rights, a Citizen residing in the host Member State must become an ‘unreasonable burden’[111] or a threat to the public policy or public security. Since there is no constitutional definition of the term ‘unreasonable burden’, the EU Commission[112] has set out three factors that should be taken into account when examining whether someone has become a burden on the social assistance of the host Member State. They are as follows:
● Duration: length of the benefit being granted
● Personal circumstances: the level of integration between the EU Citizen and the host Member State
● Amount: Total aid that has been granted in and whether the Citizen has a history of relying on social aid.[113]
ii) Evaluation of ‘reasonable’ through the ‘real link criteria’
The implication that the above test will have in relation to the UK Courts is that they must take into account of whether there is a level of integration or a genuine or real link between the UK and the EU Citizen wanting to reside within its boundaries. The real link is a product of EU Citizenship in terms of ‘potential welfare scope, but it devolves actual eligibility decisions to Member States’.[114]
The test can be also found in the ‘Habitual Residence Test’, which is implemented in UK legislation. When a real link can be proven then, the social assistance rights flowing thereunder are available to an EU Citizen. This in turn implies that EU Citizens must show that their admission in the host Member State is dependent upon ‘a little more than just physical presence’.[115] It has been argued that through the ‘real link test’ Member States are able to uphold their sovereignty by making it a precondition for social assistance eligibility.
On the contrary, the test may also pave the way for value-diversity[116] where EU law is not equally applied in in all Member States since it is difficult to ascertain a ‘real link’ between a person invoking their free movement right in the host Member State.
These conditions may not always be sympathetic towards the EU Citizens’ personal circumstances and engender hurdles for a citizen to enjoy their free movement rights as established in Article 20 of TFEU. Can it be argued that the ‘real link test’ is just a glazed term for ‘indirectly economic test?’ Although, this cannot be determined easily, it should at this point be acknowledged that Member States are indeed free to determine the relationship between the State and the EU Citizen invoking his free movement rights. However, one point can be expressed at this stage;
‘Member States, when setting out the integration responsibilities of EU migrants, may give disproportionate weight to certain factors. An emphasis on social integration as the duty of the migrant, whether economically active or not, creates the danger of slipping into the ‘MUD’, the moral underclass discourse of social exclusion’[117]
On the other hand, the ‘real link test’ endows a bit of certainty when Member States need to ascertain the quo between a Citizens equal treatment and also circumvention of that treatment. Thus, in Grzelczyk[118] the claimant’s employment history whilst pursuing his education combined with lack of previous social assistance claims gave him a right of social assistance. Hence, work can be sufficient in establishing a real link with the host Member State. Also she states that employment and social integration constitute a form of mathematical rationality in finding an overarching economic link. One justification for the economic link is that ‘non-contributory benefits, as financed from the public purse, are financed through tax, and as such taxpayers should be able to reap the benefits, unimpeded by residence requirements’.[119]
O’Brien[120] suggests that the hurdles for establishing a genuine link for a work seeker should be low because they are making themselves available for work in the labour market as suggested in Collins. Thus, ‘the criterion cannot be a monolithical one. Rather, in its application, there has to be room for considering other indications of integration, such as the individual circumstances of the applicant, and for taking into account the degree of solidarity requested’.[121]Furthermore one can argue that the ‘real link’ approach adds justice to UK laws. The significance of the test is that it enables the establishment of the reasonableness of a burden. The personal circumstances do not play a weighty role in the test, is that fair?
[1] Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193, para 32 [2] F Pennings, ‘EU Citizenship: Access to Social Benefits in Other EU Member States’ (2012) 28(3) IJCLLIR 307 [3] Chalmers and Davies and Monti, European Union Law (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2010) 447 [4] CEE countries consist of the following: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia who joined EU joined the EEC following enforcement of the Accession Treaty on 1st May 2004 (also referred to as EU10); whereas Romania and Bulgaria joined the EEC on 1st January 2007 (also referred to as EU2) [5] P Larkin, ‘The Limits to European Social Citizenship in the United Kingdom’ (2005) 68(3) MLR 435, 446 [6] Chalmers (n 3) 449 [7] A host Member State is defined as ‘the Member State to which a Union Citizen moves in order to exercise his/her right of free movement and residence’ as per article 2(3) of Directive 2004/38EC [8] Article 14 of Directive 2004/38EC [9] Emphasis added [10]M Dougan and E Spaventa, ‘Educating Rudy and the non-English patient: a double bill on residency rights under Article 18 EC’ (2003) 28(5) ELR 699 [11] K Puttick, ‘Paying their way? Contesting "Residence", self-sufficiency, and economic inactivity barriers to EEA nationals' social benefits: proportionality and discrimination’ (2011) 25(3) JIANL 280, 282 [12] A Wiesbrock, ‘Union Citizenship and the Redefinition of the "Internal Situations" Rule: The Implications of Zambrano’ (2011) 12(11) GLR 2077, 2081 [13] Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2008] OJ C115/47 [14] The European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States [2004] OJ L158/77 [15] Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (also referred to as ‘EU10’ countries) [16] European Citizen Action Service, ‘Who’s afraid of the EU’s latest enlargement? The Impact of Bulgaria and Romania joining the Union on Free Movement of Persons’ (2008) Sixth Framework Research Programme Liberty and Security <http://www.libertysecurity.org/IMG/pdf_ECAS_REPORT_free_movement_in_2007.pdf> accessed 3 March 2015 [17] P Goodman, ‘Under this Government, we have what Gordon Brown called for during his – ‘British jobs for British workers’ (2013) Consevative Home <‘http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/02/by-paul-goodmanthe-most-convincing-explanation-of-why-the-economys-rickety-condition-is-marching-in-step-with-booming-emplo.html> accessed 15 March 2015 [18] M Jouen and C Papant, ‘Social Europe in the throes of enlargement’ (2005) Policy Papers No 15 Notre Europe Etudes & Recherches <http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/policypaper15-en-jouen-palpant-europesocialandenlargement.pdf?pdf=ok > accessed 3 March 2015 [19] Ibid [20] V Mitsilgas ‘Free movement of workers, EU citizenship and the enlargement: the situation in the UK’ (2007) 21(3) JIANL 223, 225 [21] B Smith, ‘Eastern European immigrants 'overwhelming benefit UK economy’ (2013) The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10484225/Eastern-European-immigrants-overwhelming-benefit-UK-economy.html> accessed 7 March 2015 [22] Ibid (n 4) on for full list of countries [23] See (n 15) for full list [24] See Article 24, Act of Accession [2003] OJ L236/33 refers to a series of Annexes that contain the details of the transitional arrangements in respect of each accession Member State. For example, in relation to Poland see Annex XII [2003] OJ L236/875 [25] S Currie, ‘Challenging the UK rules on the rights of EU8 workers’ (2009) 31(1) JSWFL 47, 48 [26] The Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006, s 6(1) [27] HM Revenue and Customs, ‘CBTM10070 - Residence and immigration: residence - right to reside in the UK’ (2015) <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/cbtm10070.htm> accessed 7 March 2015 [28] Ibid [29] Part II (Articles 18-25) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [30] Ibid (n 27) [31] C O’Brien, ‘Real links, abstract rights and false alarms: the relationship between the ECJ's ‘real link’ case law and national solidarity’ (2008) 33(5) ELR 643 [32] K Puttick (n11) 284 [33] Article 4 of The European Parliament and Council Regulation 883/2004/EC of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems [2004] OJL 116 [34] E Guild and S Carrera and K Eisele, Social benefits and migration: A Contested relationship and policy challenge in the EU (Centre for European Policy Studies) (2013) 9 [35]Article 2 of The Treaty of Rome 1947 [36] Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 [2009] 1 CMLR 24 [37] Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1310 [2009] 2 CMLR 3 [38] Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11 [2011] 1 WLR 783 [39] Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] PTSR 1448 [40] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [41]C Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU - The Four Freedoms (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 223 [42] The Treaty on European Union (TEU) was signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and came into force on 1 November 1993 [43] The European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States [2004] OJ L158/77 [44] A Wiesbrock, ‘Union Citizenship and the Redefinition of the "Internal Situations" Rule: The Implications of Zambrano’ (2011) 12(11) GLR 2077, 2081 [45] Case C-378/97 Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207, Opinion of A.G. Cosmas, paras 86 [46] S O'Leary, ‘Putting Flesh on the Bones of European Union Citizenship’ (1999) 24 ELR 68, 68 [47] Article 20 (1) of TFEU [48] Case C-212/06 Flemish Insurance [2008] ECR I-1683, para 33 [49] Case C-175/78 Saunders [1979] ECR I- 1129, para 11 [50] Case C-127/08 Metock v Minister for Justice [2008] ECR I - 6241, para 78 [51] This was implemented in the UK by the Immigration (EEA) Regulation 2006 (SI 2006/1003) [52] Article 1 of Directive 2004/38EC [53] Article 288 of the TFEU [54] Article 14(2) of Directive 2004/38EC [55] Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011], para 42 [56] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [57] Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119 [58] Ibid para 51 [59] Recital 23 of Directive 2004/38EC [60] Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] [61] F Weiss and C Kaupa, European Union Internal Market Law (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) 115 [62] Article 24 of Directive 2004/38EC [63] Case C-406/04 De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] para 42 [64] Ibid para 43 [65] Case C-145/09 Land Baden-Wurttemberg v Tsakouridis [2010] ECR I-11979, para 50 [66] Case C-138/02 Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] ECR I -2703, para 30 [67] Ibid 40 [68] R White, ‘Free movement, equal treatment, and Citizenship of the Union’ (2005) 54(4) ICLQ 885, 897 [69] Article 6(2) of 2004/38EC [70] Article 6(1) of Directive2004/38EC [71] Article 16(1) of Directive2004/38EC [72] Article 3(i) of Treaty of Rome 1947 [73] Ex Article 39 TEC [74] Case C-334/94 Commission v France – Registration of Vessels [1996] ECR I-1307, para 21 [75] Case C-66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR I-2121; see also Case C-196/87 Steymann [1988] ECR I-6159 [76] Case C-413/01 Ninni-Orasche [2003] ECR I-13187, para 32 [77]Case C-14/09 Genc v Land Berlin Case [2010] 2 CMLR 44 [78] Case C-41/71 Van Duyn v Home Office [1971] ECR I -1337, 1352 [79] Ibid [80] REGULATION (EU) No 492/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (codification) (Text with EEA relevance) [2011] OJ L141 [81] The European Parliament and Council Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community [1968] OJ L257/2 [82] Article 7(1) workers regulation 492/2011 [83] Article 9 of workers regulation 492/2011EC [84] Ibid, Article 7(2) [85] Ibid [86] Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] PTSR 1448 [87] Case Analysed in-depth in Chapter 5 [88] Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] PTSR 1448, para 24 [89] Article 14 of Directive 2004/38EC [90] Case C-363/89 Danielle Roux v Belgian State [1991] ECR I-273, 16 [91] Article 3(2)(a) of 2004/38EC [92] Ibid [93] Ibid, Article 24 [94] Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR I-01177 [95] A TCN is someone who is not an EU Citizen [96] Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR I-01177, para 44 [97] Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38EC [98] Article 45(2) of TFEU [99] Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38EC [100] Ibid, Article 14(4)(b) [101] Case C-138/02 Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] ECR I -2703 [102] Ibid, para 63 [103] Case C-209/03 R(Bidar) v Ealing London Borough Council[2005] QB 812 [104] Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR 1-7091 [105] Ibid, para 94 [106] Article 8(4) of Directive 2004/38EC [107] Article 8(4) of Directive 2004/38EC [108] Ibid, Article 14(3) [109] Ibid [110] Recital 23 of Directive 2004/38EC [111] Ibid, Article 14 [112] Ibid, Recital 16 [113] P Minderhoud, ‘Legislative Comment-Directive 2004/38 and access to social assistance benefits’ [2011] 18(4) JSSL 153, 156 [114] C O’Brien, ‘Real links, abstract rights and false alarms: the relationship between the ECJ's ‘real link’ case law and national solidarity’ (2008) 33(5) ELR 643 [115] Ibid, 643 [116] Ibid,663 [117] Ibid, 663 [118] Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193, para 32 [119] Ibid, 652 [120] C O’Brien, ‘Real links, abstract rights and false alarms: the relationship between the ECJ's ‘real link’ case law and national solidarity’ (2008) 33(5) ELR 643 [121] Ibid, 655 [122] Recital 37 of 883/2004EC [123] Rectal 1 of 883/2004EC [124] Ibid [125] Ibid, Recital 24 [126] Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre publique d'Aide sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573 [127] Ibid para 37 [128] K Puttick (n 11) 284 [129] F Weiss and C Kaupa, European Union Internal Market Law (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) 135 [130] Case C-22/08 Vatsouras v ARGE Nürnberg [2009] ECR I-04585 [131] Case C-140/12 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Brey [2014] ECR 00000 [132] Ibid, para 77 [133] Ibid, para 80 [134] Article 14 of Directive 2004/38EC [135] Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193, para 43 [136] C-140/12 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Brey [2014] paras 39 [137] Ibid, para 77 [138] Strict conditions are regulated by Title III, Chapter 6, Articles 61-65 of Regulation 883/2004EC [139] Case C-333/13 Dano v Leipzig [2014] [140] Ibid, para 78 [141] Recital 37 of Regulation 883/2004EC [142] Lenaerts and Heremans, ‘Contours of a European Social Union in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice’ (2006) 2 Eur. Consititut. Law Rev. 101. [143] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [144] Regulation 6(1) of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 ‘worker, self-employed, jobseeker, self-sufficient person or student’ [145] Model example is given in Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21AA where a list of ‘persons not from abroad’ [146] Article 13(3)(b) of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 [147] Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 (Introductory text) [148] S Currie (n 25) 53 [149] K Puttick (n 11) 282 [150] P Larkin, ‘A policy of inconsistency and hypocrisy: United Kingdom social security policy and European Citizenship’ (2010) 31(1) JSWFL 33, 35 [151] Ibid, 39 [152] Ibid, 37 [153] Ibid [154] Ibid [155] S Currie (n 25) 56 [156] P Larkin, (n150) 42 [157] For the full accurate list please see paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 [158] P Minderhoud ‘Legislative Comment-Directive 2004/38 and access to social assistance benefits’ [2011] 18(4) JSSL 153, 156 [159] Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer (1999) 4 All ER [160] P Larkin, (n150) 37 [161] Trojani para 18 [162] Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11 [2011] 1 WLR 783, para 61 [163] Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11 [2011] 1 WLR 783 para 46 [164] Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre publique d’Aide sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573 [165] Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre publique d’Aide sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573, para 71 [166] Case C-333/13 Dano v Leipzig [2014], para 76 [167] EU Commission Notice IP/10/1418 Free Movement of Workers: Commission Requests UK to End Discrimination on other Nationals' Right to Reside as Workers (Brussels: 28 October 2010) [168] Puttick (n 11) 292 [169] Accession Monitoring Report 2004-2008 (Home Office/UKBA et al, 2008) p 23 [170] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States', Brussels 10.12.09 COM (2008) 840 Final [171] Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ] ECR 1-7091 [172] F Weiss and C Kaupa, European Union Internal Market Law (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) 201 [173] Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 [2009] 1 CMLR 24, para 69 [174] Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1310 [2009] 2 CMLR 3 [175] Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] PTSR 1448 [176] Section 17 of Schedule of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 [177] Section 5 of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000. [178] Article 16(3) of Directive 2004/38EC [179] Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 [2009] 1 CMLR 24 [180] Regulation 2(4) of Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 [181] Section 5 of The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 [182] Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 [2009] 1 CMLR 24 para 36 [183] Ibid para 39 [184] Ibid para 44 [185] Ibid para 44 [186]Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 [2009] 1 CMLR 24 Para 79 [187] Ibid para 29 [188] Ibid para 49-56 [189] Ibid para 48 [190] S Currie (n 25) 54 [191] Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11; [2011] 1 WLR 783 [192] SI 2002/1792 [193] Ibid reg (4) that ‘A person is not to be treated as not in Great Britain if he is - (a) a worker … (b) a self-employed person…’ and is otherwise within the scope of the directive. [194] Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11; [2011] 1 WLR 783 para 20 [195] Regulation 2 of 2002 states A person is to be treated as not in Great Britain if he is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland, [196] Case C-73/08 Bressol v Gouvernement de la Communaute Francaise [2010] 3 CMLR 20 [197] Ibid para 60-62 [198] Ibid para 104 [199] Ibid para 103 [200] Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre publique d’Aide sociale de Bruxelles [2004] ECR I-7573 [201] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [202] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [203] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [204] S Currie (n 25) 56 [205] S Currie (n 25) 57 [206] S Currie (n 25) 57 [207] S Currie (n 25) 52 [208] Case C-53/81 Levin [1982] ECR-I 1035 [209] S Currie ‘”Free" movers? The post-accession experience of accession-8 migrant workers in the UK’ (2006) 31(2) ELR 207, 226 [210] K Puttick (n 11) 284 [211] Article 4 of 883/2004EC [212] Article 2 of The Treaty of Rome 1947 [213] Case C-333/13 Dano v Leipzig [2014], para 74 [214] Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011], Opion of AG Eleanor Sharpston para 127-129 [215] K Puttick (n 11) 292 [216] Accession Monitoring Report 2004-2008 (Home Office/UKBA et al, 2008
Comments