Migrant Union jobseekers; Social benefits; Equal treatment; Integration requirements; Right to reside
[en] In the aftermath of the Court’s judgments in Dano and Alimanovic, there remained considerable uncertainty about the interplay between the equal treatment guarantees vested in Union citizens by Articles 18, 21 and 45 TFEU and the different legislative measures adopted to give effect to these Treaty provisions. In this context, this article seeks to cast some light on the rather ambiguous relationship between Directive 2004/38 and Regulation 492/2011. It is essentially suggested that the limitations on the right of equal treatment featured in Article 24(2) of the Citizenship Directive cannot be relied upon as such in order to circumscribe the equal treatment guarantees conferred upon “workers” by Article 7(2) of the Workers’ Regulation. At the same time, though, it would appear that the Court has accepted – albeit somewhat implicitly – that the Member States may effectively restrict migrant workers’ equality rights on the basis of integration requirements inspired to some extent by the requirements expressed in the Directive.
Research center :
Cité - CITE
Precision for document type :
Analysis of case law/Statutory reports
European & international law
Author, co-author :
Tecqmenne, Maxime ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit matériel européen
Migrant jobseekers, right of residence and access to welfare benefits: One step forward, two steps backwards?
Publication date :
Journal title :
European Law Review
Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, United Kingdom
Peer reviewed :
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in the European Law Review following peer review. The definitive published version (M. Tecqmenne, "Migrant Jobseekers, Right of Residence and Access to Welfare Benefits: One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards?" (2021) EL Rev forthcoming issue) is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service