The European Court in Luxembourg ruled that unemployed EU citizens in Germany are not entitled to claim Hartz IV benefits
According to Russkaya Germaniya, the basis for the judicial review at such a high level was a lawsuit by a Swedish citizen of Bosnian origin, Nazifa Alimanovic. Her three children were born in Germany; in 1999 she went abroad with them, in June 2010 she returned to Berlin, and from July to May 2011 she performed unskilled work for various employers. After losing her job, she did not bother to look for other positions and switched to unemployment benefits (Hartz IV), while her children began to receive social benefits. However, after six months, the Job Center of the Berlin district of Neukölln stopped all payments. Alimanovic then went to court, demanding their reinstatement.
When the court of first instance dismissed her claim, she appealed the decision. The case eventually reached the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht, BSG), which upheld all decisions of the lower courts. This provoked fierce criticism from politicians from the SPD and the Greens and some lawyers, who saw in the decision a violation of the principle of equal rights of EU citizens in access to social security. And then the BGS, wishing to finally clarify this issue, petitioned the European Court of Justice for an interpretation of EU legislation with regard to the Alimanovic case.
The judges in Luxembourg already had a precedent: back in November 2014, they ruled that 'poverty immigrants' from other EU countries who come to Germany to receive social assistance but do not want to work there are not entitled to such assistance (case C-333/13). Based on the same principle, the EuGH confirmed the legality of the German courts' practice in the Alimanovic case as well. The high court justified its position by stating that 'refusal to provide social services is not discriminatory,' particularly emphasizing that 'the state has the right to protect its social systems from overload' (case C-67/14).
The European Commission welcomed the EuGH verdict: 'The right to free movement in the European Union does not entail the right to free access to the social security systems of member states,' said EC spokesperson for employment and social affairs Christian Wigand. With understandable enthusiasm, this decision was welcomed by the German Association of Cities (Deutscher Städtetag) and the Confederation of German Employers' Associations (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände).
Politicians from the CDU/CSU bloc also breathed a sigh of relief. As CDU labor market expert Karl Schiewerling stated, 'The social security system should not create perverse incentives. Claims by foreign EU citizens for Hartz IV will deplete our social funds, especially now when money is needed for refugee assistance.' Similarly, Gerda Hasselfeldt, chairwoman of the CSU group within the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, said: 'The European Court's verdict is a very good signal. It means that European freedom of movement does not imply the possibility to choose the best social security system and take advantage of it.'
The Greens hold the opposite opinion. Bundestag deputy and social policy expert Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, calling the EuGH decision 'dubious,' stated that 'all those who come to us in search of work need support. This is what all European social policy implies.' But even Social Democrat Andrea Nahles thinks otherwise: 'This decision establishes a balance between the interests of job-seeking foreigners and the social systems of EU member states,' she said in an interview with the Rheinische Post. However, it would be surprising to hear anything else from the Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, which Andrea Nahles is.