Is The Uk's Restriction On Eu Workers' Access To Benefits Legal - As Well As If Not, Should It Be?

Steve Peers

Today the Britain regime has announced a novel threshold for determining whether an European Union citizen from some other Member State is genuinely a 'worker' or not, for the purposes of claiming benefits. Are these rules compatible amongst European Union police line on the gratis drive of workers? And if not, should European Union police line last changed so that they are?

According to the novel Britain rules, to obtain 'worker' status, citizens from other Member United States of America volition get got to earn £150/week for at to the lowest degree iii months. If they cope this, in addition to so they volition get got access to tyke benefit, tyke taxation credit, job-seekers' allowance in addition to housing benefit. If not, in addition to so they volition non last automatically denied benefits; rather their pose volition last dependent acre to a case-by-case analysis.

Is this a violation of European Union law? In a serial of cases dating from the 1980s, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarifed the pregnant of 'worker' for the purposes of the European Union Treaties, which render for the gratis drive of workers. This representative police line clarified that a somebody must last considered to last a 'worker' fifty-fifty if he or she industrial plant part-time, equally long equally the operate is 'genuine in addition to effective' in addition to non 'marginal or ancillary'. In particular, an European Union citizen claiming top-up benefits mightiness nonetheless last considered a 'worker' (Kempf). However, at that topographic point is no hard-and-fast dominion inwards this representative police line determining what it takes to last an European Union worker.

At commencement sight, the novel Britain rules seem to ready such a hard-and-fast rule, which conflicts amongst the representative police line of the CJEU. It is certain, inwards low-cal of its prior representative law, that the CJEU would care that at to the lowest degree some people earning an average of less than £150/week for iii months were workers. It is fifty-fifty to a greater extent than for certain that the CJEU would condemn the dominion if it requires the worker to earn to a greater extent than than that amount every week for that period, rather than an average - but it is non clear if the dominion goes that far.

 However, the novel British dominion is non equally strict equally that. Instead, it appears to do (at most) a rebuttable presumption that the persons earning less than that amount are non workers. Its compatibility amongst the gratis drive of workers thus depends largely on how it is genuinely applied to private situations, which mightiness inwards business office depend on the policy guidance which volition presumably last issued past times the regime to the civil servants who utilize it. The crucial bespeak should last how just the presumption (is that is what it volition be) tin last rebutted.

So the respond to the commencement enquiry posed higher upward is: It depends on how the police line is applied inwards practice. That's non a really satisfactory answer, perhaps, but it is oft the exclusively honest respond to a legal question. Having said that, it mightiness nonetheless last worth challenging the novel rules for their compatibility amongst European Union law, via the national courts in addition to past times agency of complaints to the Commission, to obtain some farther clarification of the European Union Definition of 'worker'.

Should the European Union rules on benefits for European Union citizens last changed?

This brings us to the minute question: Should the rules last changed? Of course, this is a political question, but it has a legal context. Since the rules are closely related to the interpretation of the concept of 'worker', a term ready out inwards the European Union Treaties, it would get got a treaty amendment to modify them. Such a treaty amendment would demand the approving of all 28 Member United States of America (or mayhap 29, if Alex Salmond's dreams come upward true).

In the normal course of education of events, it is unlikely that all Member United States of America would care to a Treaty modify that would negatively touching on their citizens who get got moved to other Member United States of America in addition to taken upward low-paid work. However, it is but most conceivable that they would last willing to negotiate a express clarification on workers' access to benefits inwards the context of a Britain bid to renegotiate the damage of its Britain membership. Perhaps this modify could fifty-fifty utilize across the board, to all Member States: it would in all probability last welcome inwards some other Member States, in addition to it mightiness fifty-fifty growth world back upward for farther European Union enlargement.

It mightiness last argued that whatever restriction on the established rights of European Union workers is unthinkable. But consider the alternative: if the Britain were quest to renegotiate its European Union membership, that would hateful that a Conservative regime had won a bulk (or really approximately a majority) inwards the 2015 Britain full general election. That regime would last demanding a modify inwards the UK's European Union obligations, otherwise it would Pb the Britain out of the EU. And that would, of course, take away whatever rights for European Union citizens at all inwards the Britain - dependent acre to whatever (doubtless to a greater extent than limited) rights were agreed equally business office of the UK's hypothetical futurity association understanding amongst the EU. Moreover, a minor restriction on the benefits which low-paid workers could have would last much a less important restriction on gratis drive rights than the demand of some critics of European Union membership - that the Britain should last able to ready a quota on the numbers of European Union citizens moving to the country. Could it last fourth dimension to retrieve the unthinkable?

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

Share this post