European Court Throws out "Benefit Tourist" Bid

international | eu | news report Thursday March 25, 2004 20:55 by Fergus newsforthedeaf at yahoo dot com

The Minister for Social & Family Affairs, Mary Coughlin recently announced plans to introduce a two-year “habitual residence” test to restrict access to social welfare in Ireland.
This followed a similar move in the UK with whom we share a “common travel area”.
In both cases the restrictions were announced as being part of preparations for EU “enlargement” on May 1st.

After the restrictions were announced Minister Coughlin was questioned about the legitimacy of the rules under EU law.

To comply with EU law, the Minister was careful to introduce restrictions that targeted the “inactive” and which also included Irish people as well as EU and non-EU people.

On Tuesday 23rd a judgement in relation to “habitual residence” was reached in the European Court of Justice.
An Irish-American who was refused a jobseeker’s allowance in the UK lost his case against the British Government.

Profile of a “benefit tourist”

Brian Francis Collins was born in the US in 1957.
He holds dual Irish and American nationality.
During his student days he worked briefly in the UK in 1980-81.
17 years later
he returned to the UK on May 31, 1998.
Eight days later
He applied for social welfare.

Brian was refused ‘jobseekers allowance’ on the ground that he was not “habitually resident” in the UK, as required to qualify.

Brian appealed on the grounds that this UK law, breached EU laws.

arts 48 (2) of the EC Treaty on the free movement of workers.
art 6 on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.
art 8 on citizenship of the EU

The UK’s Social Security Commissioner passed the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a ruling on whether the residency requirement was in line with EU law.

This week in Luxembourg almost six years later [?]
on March 23, the top court in Europe (ECJ) made a judgement.

Under consideration was
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 -
A “worker” from another state “shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers”.

However this only applied to people in employment, and not to persons merely seeking employment.

In this case Brian was not a “worker”.
Under this “worker” rule Brian also did not have the right of residence in the UK under Council Directive 68/360/EEC.


Judges shut Fortress door

“Jobseeker’s allowance is a social security benefit which requires in particular the claimant to be available for and actively seeking employment,”
“It may be regarded as legitimate for a member state to grant such an allowance only after (establishing) that a genuine link exists between the person seeking work and the employment market of that state.
“The existence of such a link may be determined by establishing that the person concerned has, for a reasonable period, in fact genuinely sought employment in the member state in question.”

Two years doesn't sound like a fucking "reasonable period" to me.

Welcome to the EU
On Friday 26th at the EU Spring Summit, discussions will focus on the progress of the Lisbon Agenda,
“reform of social protection systems, including pension systems, must go hand in hand.”

Seems to me that the real benefit tourists can be found at exclusive resorts like EU Summits.


EU court rejects 'benefit tourism' appeal
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040323124034.d1icyhau

Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
http://www.lawreports.co.uk/ecjmare0.3.htm

Inside + Outside - EU Enlargement Restrictions