Law and Policy of the European Union - Report Example

Law and Policy of the European Union law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Applicable Laws in This Case 5 Critical Analysis of the Judgement of the Case of Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig 6 Conclusion 9 References 10 Introduction The case i.e. Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig is primarily concerned with the practice of equal treatment law and free movement regulations for the citizenship of EU within the region. It will be vital to mention that the aspects concerning equal treatment and free movement are often regarded as certain requisites in certain nations based on which the overall performance of the individuals residing within the communities of such nations gets assesses for future reference. Thus, it is to be inferred that these particular factors are deemed to be viewed as imperative financial indicators for varied nations throughout the globe. Evidently, Ms Dano and her son Florin reside in Germany for a considerable period as EU citizens. However, she filed a case against Jobcenter Leipzig based on the ground that she was not provided with equal treatment relating to social benefits that are guaranteed by the EU towards its nationals. It can be ascertained from the analysis of the case that EU nationals have the right of free movement and equal treatment within the EU nations and should not be discriminated based on any specific ground. This is mainly ensured by the concerned authorities with the intention of eliminating any sort of discrimination prevailing within the society. The law also states that in order to get access to the benefits, EU citizens will need to meet all the criteria1. However, Jobcenter Leipzig denied offering social benefits to Ms Dano and Florin based on the basic provisions of Germany2. Correspondingly, in this particular essay, focus would be levied on analysing the case or the judgement of CJEU with due regards to the free movement law and equal treatment provisions against the accusation of welfare tourism. Discussion People usually enter into Germany with the intention of obtaining societal benefits without contributing to the welfare of the communities. This social assistance can also be measured in the form of acquiring benefits of residence within the nation by exercising free movement right of the same. However, it has been learned that this particular provision provides less coverage to the people who are associated with having certain specific purposes. To have a better comprehension in this context, the case of Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig can be taken into concern for discussion. In this context, the case of Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig is deemed to be one of the landmark litigations within the European Union law. The case is identified to get associated with free movement of people within the European (EU) region. As per the case, Ms Dano along with her son Florin filed a litigation against Jobcenter Leipzig on the ground that the latter has denied providing the former with the benefits that they are supposed to obtain as per the basic provisions of Germany. While analysing the case, it can be found that Ms Dano entered Germany with some other purpose apart from seeking job for herself. On that very note, since her entering into Germany was not owing to work, she will not be levied to get the benefits under the basic provisions. It was also found from the case that Ms Dano and her son also possess lack of professional experience and expertise of working in any sector in Romania from where she belong, which further puts her in a legal position of being provided with the basic social amenities by Germany and people residing within the society. To have a better comprehension in this context, analysis needs to be framed and elaborated with regards to the legal positioning of the defendants in alignment with various EU laws3. Applicable Laws in This Case There lay several laws that are applicable in this particular case and likewise judgment is made in respond to the case by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Equal treatment to the people within the EU region can be duly considered as one of the laws, which is deemed to be applicable in this context. The Equal treatment law of the EU primarily depicts the right of every individual of the member states to avail employment and occupational opportunities within the member nations of the EU. As per the Directive 2000/78/EC of the law, when people of one EU member nation travel to other nations within the EU regions, they are provided with legal rights concerning equal opportunity and access to employment or any other occupation within the nation. The Directive also represents that the people will also possess the right to receive vocational training for a particular profession in order to get embedded with the employment conditions of the region. An individual will be able to exercise this particular right both within the private and public sector. However, for this particular law to come into practical practice, the individuals should possess genuine qualification for getting involved into employment within the EU nations4. Another law, which can be applicable or even applied in providing judgement to the above case, is regarding free movement within the EU nations. Correspondingly, it can be depicted that as per the general principle of the EU regulations, people who are nationals of one of the countries of the EU will possess the right to move freely in other nations within the EU region without facing any obstacle or barrier based on the aspects of nationality, gender, age or any other related factor. Free movement of people within the EU region is one of the prime components of the free movement principle. Under the article 45 of the free movement principle of the EU, people who are active and stable to work in another EU nation will not be restricted and provided with equal opportunities under the law. However, in the reverse scenario, people might get hindered in reaping social benefits within the member nations of the EU. This means that economical inactive EU citizens will certainly get barred from proper implementation of equal treatment and free movement within the EU nations5. Critical Analysis of the Judgement of the Case of Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig The case of Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig has been trailed within the CJEU in alignment with the laws of the EU. The court provided the judgement of the case mainly based on the grounds of equal treatment policy and free movement of EU citizens with the regions of the EU nations. The Court Of Justice of the EU made it apparent that there are certain social benefits, which might not be provided to the EU citizens despite of the prevalence of EU norms regarding equal treatment and free movement. In this case, the basic provisions of German regulations have been duly considered by the court of law while providing judgement to the parties involved. However, the court responded that in general, a person belonging to one particular EU nation, will be able to obtain all or most of the benefits, if he/she is involved with compliance to all the norms that are provided under the “Directive on free movement for EU citizens.” At the same time, the court of law of the EU also mentioned that the host nation will not have the legal responsibility of providing all the basic social benefits to an individual of other EU nations within the first three months of his/her residence. In this particular case, the issues does not get related with the time of residence of the individual, rather since both Ms Dano and Florin have been residing in Germany from three years, which further meets the obligation of the EU law regarding equal treatment and free movement. The decision of this particular case was mainly made against Ms Dano and her son on the ground that they were not been able to meet the legal criteria attaining the social benefits in Germany as per the equality and free movement norm of the EU6. This decision of the court of law can be regarded as quite justifiable owing to certain specific criteria. Justifiably, though both Ms Dano and Florin staying or stayed in Germany for a considerable period, they failed to meet the criteria of the EU laws regarding free movement and equal treatment. From the analysis of the case, it can be ascertained that Ms Dano was economically unfit to work or associate with a particular profession in Germany. Moreover, she possessed certain lacunas in required skills and experiences to get employment in Germany, which again makes her economically unfit for the nation, further restricting her from reaping social benefits as an EU citizen. The court has also made it apparent that the EU laws exclude the application of domestic regulations of particular EU nations7. Therefore, the approach of Jobcenter Leipzig of not providing social benefits to Ms Dano and her son can be justified both on the basis of basic domestic norms of Germany as well as the laws of free movement and equal treatment of the EU. It has been apparent from the above analysis that the decision of the court can be duly considered as justified based on the non-contributory benefits that found to be relevant with the regulations of the EU. It is evident that Ms Dano and her son failed to meet the criteria set under EU regulations that can further hinder them to avail the benefits of social assistance as EU citizens in Germany. This aspect was also apparent within the cases of Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola, C-15/69, 15 October 1969 and Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, C-152/73, 12 February 19748. However, there exist certain specific aspects based on which the case has been criticised or observed from negative perceptions. It has been much apparent that Ms Dano and her son failed to meet the legal criteria in the context of acquiring desired benefits that are being offered by the EU and its various laws. The general provisions of Germany also hinder Ms Dano and her son to avail the social benefits that they are supposed to receive as the citizens of EU9. In relation to the above context, it is to be affirmed that welfare benefits with regards to tourism are an important aspect based on which the case of Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig could be analysed. It is a particular concept through which the tourists are provided with certain benefits relating to social assistance within the EU regions. However, it is vital to mention that in course of time, these benefits get eliminated in various nations of the EU including the UK and Germany. For example, the government of Germany has set a six month maximum stay within the nation especially for the job seekers so that the nation will not have to bear the costs of the people for a longer time. Correspondingly, with regards to welfare tourism as well, the judgement of CJEU relating to Elisabeta Dano, Floin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig can be duly considered as justifiable10. Conclusion From the overall analysis, several key facts relevant to the case can be compiled and presented together to obtain the desired results. Notably, the case of Ms Dano and her son against Jobcenter Leipzig mainly equates with the EU based laws and regulations focusing upon equal treatment and free movement of the EU citizens. It is strongly believed that as per the equal treatment and free movement policies of the EU, nationals within the EU regions would be bestowed with the opportunity to get employment and access to various other social rights as well as amenities. However, Jobcenter Leipzig denied providing certain basic amenities to Ms Dano and her son with certain basic amenities based on general or basic provisions of Germany. This has been further affirmed by the court on grounds that basic provision of a nation will not be excluded when the EU laws are being practiced. Hence, it is apparent that the judgement of the court relating to the above case is justified in alignment with the legal norms. References Court of Justice of the European Union. ‘Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig’ Press Release No 146/14, 2014 (assessed 8 April 2015). European Commission. ‘Case law’ Home, < http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=953&intPageId=1217&langId=en> n.d. (assessed 8 April 2015). ECAS. ‘EU Rights in the Spotlight’ News, 2014 (assessed 8 April 2015). European Commission. ‘Free Movement - EU nationals’ Policies and Activities, < http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457 > n.d. (assessed 8 April 2015). Eu Laws. ‘Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig’ Home, < http://www.eulaws.eu/?p=2507> (assessed 8 April 2015). Europa. ‘Equal treatment in employment and occupation’ Summaries of EU Legislation, n.d. (assessed 8 April 2015). Housing Rights Watch. ‘C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig (Germany) [11.11.2014]’ Jurisdiction, 2014 (assessed 8 April 2015). The Economist. ‘Benefits tourism not OK’ Welfare in Europe, 2014 (assessed 8 April 2015). Read More