CYIL 2015

THE LIMITS OF SOǧCALLED BENEFIT TOURISM AND THE FREE MOVEMENT OF EU CITIZENS fully applies. Due to these national measures, any attempt to qualify benefits under SGB II as social assistance seems to be entirely hopeless. So even if Germany managed to convince the CJEU that the benefits under SGB II represent a substantial portion of social assistance, under Article 70 in conjunction with Annex X to Regulation 883/2004 such benefits have to be granted to EU citizens in Germany, in line with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. In this situation it appears that requests for preliminary rulings made by German courts are almost redundant, since the relevant questions concerning the access of job-seeking Union citizens to SGB II benefits have been mostly clarified in the cases of Vatsouras and Koupatantze. The case of Ms. Dano, however, added a new dimension to the whole issue. Unlike the Greek applicants, Ms. Dano was not able to prove a genuine link with the German labour market. The Romanian applicant had not entered German territory in order to seek work and had not even tried to find work after her arrival. Her chances on the German labour market were extremely low because she had not even completed primary education in Romania, she had no professional qualifications or experience, and she was not able to fully understand ordinary complex text in German language. Under these circumstances, Ms. Dano belonged to a specific group of inactive EU citizens whose integration into the labour market of the host country is, at least in the medium term, practically impossible. 4.2 The Advocate - General’s Opinion A number of governments of EUMember States intervened before the CJEU – the German, the Austrian, the Danish, the Irish, the French and the British governments. According to reports in German newspapers, 38 the European Commission argued that the criteria for granting social benefits to migrating EU citizens should be examined with regard to the specific circumstances of each particular case. According to the European Commission, the German authorities had to determine whether the financial problems of Mrs. Dano were only temporary and whether she was well integrated in Germany. The legal counsel of Ms. Dano supported this argument and pointed out that Ms. Dano had been living in Germany for almost four years and had close ties to her sister, with whom she was sharing the household. The Austrian government partially supported the argument of the European Commission and argued that each case should be reviewed individually. The Austrian government, however, added that, in the particular case of Ms. Dano, integration into the German labour market was very unlikely and the benefit under SGB II should not be granted. The German government denied the request for an individual examination of the case and explained that such a procedure would excessively burden the competent

38 See e.g. Badische Zeitung of 19 March 2014 (available at: http://www.badische-zeitung.de/nachrichten/ deutschland/deutschland-verteidigt-ausschluss-von-hartz-iv.

203