This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/europe/european-union-welfare-benefits-to-immigrants.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
E.U. Members May Limit Welfare Benefits to Immigrants, Court Rules E.U. Members May Limit Welfare Benefits to Immigrants, Court Rules
(about 4 hours later)
BERLIN — Countries in the European Union can limit access to welfare benefits for citizens from poorer countries in the 28-nation bloc, Europe’s top court ruled on Tuesday. BERLIN — The European Union’s top court put its thumb on the scale of one of the bloc’s most divisive issues Tuesday, ruling in effect that richer countries can limit access to welfare benefits for citizens from poorer ones.
The European Court of Justice ruled that a Romanian woman who migrated to Germany was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she had made no effort to find a job. The woman had sued a German employment center in Leipzig for refusing to grant unemployment benefits for her and her son. In the decision, the European Court of Justice ruled that a Romanian woman who had immigrated to Germany was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she had made no effort to find a job.
The decision is limited in scope but is likely to be seized on by leaders in Britain and Germany seeking to tamp down populist furor fed by the belief that poorer Europeans are moving to richer countries to tap into their generous welfare systems. Soon after, Prime Minister David Cameron wrote on Twitter that he supported the ruling saying it curbed “benefit tourism” and was “simple common sense.” While the ruling is limited in scope, it may now provide some political cover to governments, like those in Britain and Germany, that have complained of “welfare tourism” and faced strong opposition at home over immigration policies because of it.
There are no statistics to size up “welfare tourism,” nor any figures that suggest this has seriously drained public coffers in European states. But in Britain, particularly, popular anger over immigration is thought to have bolstered support for the U.K. Independence Party, which is posing a right-wing challenge to Mr. Cameron and his Conservative Party in advance of elections next May. The decision may also provide a safety valve of sorts to relieve pressures within the European Union over immigration, which have grown more profound during the long economic crisis and as the bloc has expanded to include newer and poorer members, like Romania and Bulgaria.
Advisers to Mr. Cameron have even floated proposals about capping the movement of immigrants from poorer European Union states to Britain. European Union officials and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have warned against such a move, noting that it would contravene the principle of free movement, which she has said is not negotiable. At a conference of Britain’s biggest business lobby on Monday, some prominent business leaders also argued strongly for free movement within the union. Whether those fears of a drain on wealthier nations are justified or not some statistics suggest that the problem is vastly overstated they have given new life to a debate over the free movement of peoples within the union, long cherished as a core principle of the 28-nation bloc.
Under pressure from the rise of the Independence Party, Mr. Cameron has promised to lay out plans before Christmas to tackle the rise in immigration. Although Britain’s welfare system is not particularly generous, it is relatively easy to win benefits because workers do not generally have to contribute for long periods before qualifying for benefits. In Britain, advisers to Prime Minister David Cameron recently floated proposals about limiting the flow of immigrants from poorer union members, trying to tamp down populist furor fed by the belief that poorer Europeans were sapping the country’s welfare system.
Ms. Merkel told reporters at a Brussels summit meeting last month that Germany, too, was experiencing “very intensive discussions” over the needs of immigrants, and was thus eagerly awaiting Tuesday’s ruling, involving a Romanian woman, Elisabeta Dano, and her son, Florin, who applied for a form of jobless compensation in Leipzig. According to the German news agency DPA, Ms. Dano was receiving child allowance and support benefits totaling 317 euros per month when she brought her case. Such suggestions struck a nerve with other European leaders, not least Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who warned that freedom of movement within the bloc was not negotiable.
Using Twitter, Mr. Cameron immediately seized on the ruling as “simple common sense” that could curb “benefits tourism.”
The ruling was also welcomed by Brussels. The European Commission, the union’s executive arm, “has consistently stressed that free movement is the right to free circulation,” said Mina Andreeva, a spokeswoman.
But, she added, that “is not a right to freely access the member states’ social assistance systems.”
The ruling may now provide Mr. Cameron some ballast as he tries to navigate between competing political demands at home and those from his fellow European leaders.
Mr. Cameron and his Conservative Party have faced an increasingly vigorous challenge from the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, which has used fears that immigrants from poorer European countries will burden the country.
Under such pressures, Mr. Cameron has promised to lay out plans before Christmas to tackle the rise in immigration. Although Britain’s welfare system is not particularly generous, it is relatively easy to win benefits because workers do not generally have to contribute for long periods before qualifying.
Ms. Merkel has faced similar pressures. Even as she has insisted on freedom of movement, she acknowledged to reporters last month that Germany, too, was experiencing “very intensive discussions” over the needs of immigrants, and that she was thus eagerly awaiting Tuesday’s ruling.
While her government had no immediate reaction, it was expressly welcomed by her conservative sister party in Bavaria, which has agitated against the alleged abuse of welfare systems by foreigners, as has a rising new party, the Alternative for Germany.
In Tuesday’s case, a Romanian woman, Elisabeta Dano, sued a German employment center in Leipzig for refusing to grant unemployment benefits for her and her son. According to the German news agency DPA, Ms. Dano was receiving child allowance and support benefits totaling 317 euros a month when she brought her case.
The European court had already said in May that the woman was not entitled to the benefits, and Tuesday’s ruling was the final word in the case. Ms. Merkel said in Brussels that she would discuss the case with Mr. Cameron and others, if necessary.The European court had already said in May that the woman was not entitled to the benefits, and Tuesday’s ruling was the final word in the case. Ms. Merkel said in Brussels that she would discuss the case with Mr. Cameron and others, if necessary.
The ruling provides “a little bit of legal cover” for communities throughout Germany struggling with an influx of refugees and immigrants, said Uwe Lübking, a social policy expert with the German Association of Cities and Communities, which he said represented almost all 11,500 such communities.The ruling provides “a little bit of legal cover” for communities throughout Germany struggling with an influx of refugees and immigrants, said Uwe Lübking, a social policy expert with the German Association of Cities and Communities, which he said represented almost all 11,500 such communities.
“But it is only a small building block because it also said that we have to examine each case individually, and not all cases are as clear,” Mr. Lübking added, referring to the woman in Leipzig.“But it is only a small building block because it also said that we have to examine each case individually, and not all cases are as clear,” Mr. Lübking added, referring to the woman in Leipzig.
He emphasized that the vast majority of European Union immigrants come either for a specific job or to find work, and are “sought after here in Germany,” which faces a growing labor shortage because of a demographic crisis. In addition, Mr. Lübking noted, “if you look at certain areas in Romania or Bulgaria, you can understand that they hope for a better life.” He emphasized that the vast majority of European Union immigrants come either for a specific job or to find work, and are “sought after here in Germany,” which faces a growing labor shortage because of a demographic crisis.
In addition, Mr. Lübking noted, “if you look at certain areas in Romania or Bulgaria, you can understand that they hope for a better life.”
Most of the popular anger at perceived “welfare tourism” has centered on Romanians and Bulgarians, who this year became eligible for full freedom of movement throughout the 28 nations of the European Union.Most of the popular anger at perceived “welfare tourism” has centered on Romanians and Bulgarians, who this year became eligible for full freedom of movement throughout the 28 nations of the European Union.
Ms. Merkel’s government had no immediate reaction to the ruling, but it was expressly welcomed by her conservative sister party in Bavaria, which has agitated against the alleged abuse of welfare systems by foreigners, as has a rising new party, the Alliance for Germany.
The ruling was also welcomed by the European Commission in Brussels. The commission, the union’s executive arm, “has consistently stressed that free movement is the right to free circulation,” said Mina Andreeva, a commission spokeswoman. But that “is not a right to freely access the member states’ social assistance systems.”
Timothy Kirkhope, a spokesman on justice and home affairs issues for the Conservatives in the European Parliament, affirmed that the ruling would have “wide-ranging implications for how the U.K. can tighten its welfare system to ensure only migrants that make a contribution can receive something back.”Timothy Kirkhope, a spokesman on justice and home affairs issues for the Conservatives in the European Parliament, affirmed that the ruling would have “wide-ranging implications for how the U.K. can tighten its welfare system to ensure only migrants that make a contribution can receive something back.”
“This court case and this ruling show quite clearly that the U.K. is not alone in its concerns about restoring free movement to its core principle: free movement of labor,” Mr. Kirkhope said in a statement. “The government will be heartened by this decision today.”“This court case and this ruling show quite clearly that the U.K. is not alone in its concerns about restoring free movement to its core principle: free movement of labor,” Mr. Kirkhope said in a statement. “The government will be heartened by this decision today.”
Britain’s opposition Labour Party also welcomed the ruling and urged the government to extend the waiting time for Europeans to become eligible for benefits. “It’s now time for ministers to act,” said Rachel Reeves, who speaks for Labour in the British Parliament on work and pensions. Britain’s opposition Labour Party also welcomed the ruling and urged the government to extend the waiting time for Europeans to become eligible for benefits.
“It’s now time for ministers to act,” said Rachel Reeves, who speaks for Labour in the British Parliament on work and pensions.