The claimant entered the UK as a student coming from Poland. She then worked as a kitchen maid, but having left that job on becoming a mother was refused income support. She later returned to work. She said that the rules which denied her benefit were inconsistent with articles 12 (discrimination on the grounds of nationality) and 18 (free movement of workers) of the Treaty, relying on Trajani.
Held: The appeal failed. Abdirahman could not be said to be per incuriam so as to allow the applicant to rely on article 12. Nor could article 18 be read to include a class or workers who had been explicitly excluded.
Maurice Kay LJ said that if a citizen of one Member State who is lawfully present in another Member State can, without difficulty and whilst economically inactive, access the social security benefits of the host State, the implications for the more prosperous Member States with more generous social security provisions are obvious. The rules that regulation 2 of the 2002 Regulations lays down are intended to meet this problem. There are various ways in which the pre-condition for entitlement can be achieved under its provisions. They are not exclusively dependent on the nationality of the persons concerned.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Maurice Kay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1310, Times 04-Dec-2008, [2009] Eu LR 402, [2009] 2 CMLR 85, [2009] PTSR 897, [2009] 2 CMLR 3
Bailii
Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000, EU Treaty 12 18
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Abdirahman v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 5-Jul-2007
The appellants were economically inactive EEA nationals who were lawfully present in the UK and who appealed against refusal of their claims for social security benefits under Articles 12 18.
Held: The appeal failed. For Art 12, the benefits . .
Cited – Baumbast and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The first applicant, his wife and her children had been granted leave to stay in the UK. At the time the leave was withdrawn the children were settled in schools, and were granted indefinite leave. The second applicant was the mother of children who . .
Cited – Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 12-May-1998
ECJ A benefit such as the child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which . .
Cited – Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve ECJ 20-Sep-2001
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal du travail de Nivelles – Belgium. Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) – Council Directive 93/96/EEC – . .
Cited – Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) ECJ 7-Sep-2004
EAT Freedom of movement of persons – Citizenship of the European Union – Right of residence – Directive 90/364/EEC – Limitations and conditions – Person working in a hostel in return for benefits in kind – . .
Cited by:
Cited – Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Benefits
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.278300