{"title":"欧盟在东道国获得社会援助的基本权利?欧盟对经济不活跃的联盟公民在达诺后自由流动的模棱两可的态度","authors":"Ferdinand Wollenschläger","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An EU Fundamental Right to Social Assistance in the Host Member State? The CJEU’s Ambivalent Approach to the Free Movement of Economically Inactive Union Citizens Post Dano\",\"authors\":\"Ferdinand Wollenschläger\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718166-12340122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340122\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340122","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
An EU Fundamental Right to Social Assistance in the Host Member State? The CJEU’s Ambivalent Approach to the Free Movement of Economically Inactive Union Citizens Post Dano
The right of residence of economically inactive Union citizens, as well as their claim to access to social benefits in other EU Member States, constitutes a complex and politically sensitive issue which has been debated controversially in EU law for decades. After some initially dynamic case-law, the CJEU followed a more reserved approach in its Dano judgment that was handed down on 11 November 2014. Its interpretation has however remained controversial, notably in view of the specific facts, the selective discussion of EU secondary law, and the unclear relationship to established as well as to subsequent case-law. Thus, the first follow-up judgment has been awaited with interest. It is the judgment in the CG case handed down on 15 July 2021 and discussed here; it however proves ambivalent. On the one hand, the CJEU has continued its restrictive reading of Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, whilst on the other hand the CJEU has activated for the first time, moreover contrary to Dano and with potentially far-reaching consequences, EU fundamental rights as a basis for a claim to social assistance in the host Member State.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.