{"title":"不从事经济活动的移民联邦公民获得社会援助的权利:法院无视相称原则,让《宪章》来平息后果","authors":"H. Verschueren","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221116229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court’s restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court’s implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"483 - 498"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The right to social assistance for economically inactive migrating Union citizens: The Court disregards the principle of proportionality and lets the Charter appease the consequences\",\"authors\":\"H. Verschueren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1023263X221116229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court’s restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court’s implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"483 - 498\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221116229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221116229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
The right to social assistance for economically inactive migrating Union citizens: The Court disregards the principle of proportionality and lets the Charter appease the consequences
In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court’s restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court’s implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.