Does or should the conclusion drawn in Dano also apply to union citizens who do try to find a job in another member state? Can they be excluded from social assistance? That question is addressed in the Alimanovic case, which is now pending before the Court and in which Advocate General (AG) Wathelet yesterday delivered his opinion.  

The case concerns Ms Nazifa Alimanovic and her three children, who are all Swedish nationals. The three children were born in Germany. After living abroad for some ten years, the family returned to Germany. During part of the first year after their arrival Ms Alimanovic and her elder daughter Sonita worked in short-term jobs. Thereafter, they were unemployed. Initially, Ms Alimanovic and Sonita received social benefits for persons fit for work, while the other two children, Valentina and Valentino, were given social allowances for beneficiaries unfit for work. Later, however, the benefits granted to the family were all withdrawn on the ground German legislation denies the social benefits at hand to non-nationals who only have a right to reside in Germany as jobseekers.

In answering the question whether the withdrawal of the benefits initially granted to Ms Alimanovic and her children is compatible with EU law, AG Wathelet distinguishes three situations.

The first concerns Union citizens who travel and move to another Member State and do not seek to find employment. Such Union citizens, as follows from Dano, can be excluded from social assistance benefits.

The second situation involves Union citizens who move to another Member States and do try to find a job. In the AG’s view, such jobseekers can also be denied social assistance.

The third situation concerns Union citizens who stay for more than three months in the territory of another Member State and who, like Ms Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita, have worked there before but are now unemployed. Such jobseekers, so the AG opines, cannot be automatically excluded from social assistance. While such jobseekers are no longer workers, they must be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have a “genuine link” with the host Member State. If they can do so, for example by referring to family circumstances (such as the children’s education), their previous work or that they have found new (part-time) employment, they cannot be denied social assistance.

Whether or not he Court will follow the AG later this year remains to be seen, but the distinction the latter makes between “first time jobseekers” (second situation) and “second time jobseekers” (third situation) makes sense. The former have not yet made any meaningful contributions to the host State’s economy, society of public fisc. If they were to have a right to social assistance, social tourism may very well occur. The same does not hold true for second-time work-seekers. They have made already become contributing members of the host State’s society and awarding them a right to social assistance under the same conditions as nationals of the host State is fully in line with the notion that Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, entitling them to equal treatment regardless of their nationality.