European (internal) migration law as an instrument for defining the boundaries of national solidarity systems

European Journal of Migration and Law

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 307-346

  Verschueren, Herwig ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Article 18 EC; Directive 2003 109; Directive 2004 38; European citizenship; Free movement EU citizens; Minimum subsistence benefits; Regulation 1408 71; Social security co ordination

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548543969     PISSN: 1388364X     EISSN: 15718166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/138836407X225696     Document Type: Review

References (215)

1. See for instance Case C-158/96, Kohll, [1998] ECR I-1931, para 17-19.
2. For the purpose of this article I will concentrate primarily on the European migration law dealing with the rights of persons to move and reside within the Union (internal migration within the 27 Member States). I will not examine the impact of external European migration law on entrance and immigration via the Union's external borders.
3. Regulation 3/1958, based on art. 51 EEC.
4. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community. This regulation has been modified on numerous occasions. See the consolidated version on: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1971/en_1971R1408_index.html.
5. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the co-ordination of social security systems, OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, 1;
6. corrigendum OJ L 200, 7.6.2004, 1.
7. See more details on the personal scope of these regulations hereafter under point 2.1.
8. Such as social assistance, study grants and other social advantages.
9. Such as art. 39, 42 EC;
10. art. 7(2) Regulation 1612/68.
11. Just to mention some examples of this case law: Case 249/83, Hoeckx [1985] ECR 1985 973;
12. Case C-3/90, Bernini [1992] ECR I-1071;
13. Case C-337/97, Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289;
14. Case C-237/94, O'Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617
15. and Case C-278/94, Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I-4307.
16. See on this issue (amongst others): Ellis, 'Social Advantages: a new Lease of Life', 40 CML Rev. (2003), 639-659
17. and Verschueren, "The Relationship between Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 analysed, though ECJ Case Law on Frontier Workers', European Journal of Social Security (2004), 17-32.
18. Dougan en Spaventa, '"Wish You Weren't Here..." New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', in: Spaventa, and Dougan, Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford: Hart 2005, 190.
19. See for instance Case 59/85, Reed [1986] ECR, 2183 on the right of residence of unmarried partners and Meeusen (cited above note 9) on study grants for children of migrant workers.
20. See the academic literature hereinafter referred to under point 3.
21. See for instance: Case C-45/92 and C-46/92, Lepore en Scamuffa [1993] ECR, 6497, para 21;
22. Case C-165/91, Van Munster [1994] ECR I-4661, para 27
23. and Case C-443/93, Vougioukas [1995] ECR I-4033, para 39.
24. Kohll, cited above note 1, para 18.
25. Case 41/84, Pinna [1986] ECR 1, para 20;
26. Case C-340/94, De Jaeck [1997] ECR I-461, para 18
27. and more recently Case C-493/04, Piatkowski [2006] ECR I-2369, para 19-20
28. and Case C-50/05, Nikula [2006] ECR I-7029, para 20.
29. See for an example of a non-discriminatory obstacle to the free movement of persons in the field of social security: Case C-10/90, Masgio [1991] ECR I-1119.
30. By Regulation 1390/81 of 12 May 1981, OJ L 143, 29.5.1981.
31. This category has been introduced in the scope of Regulation 1408/71 by Regulation 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, OJ L 38, 12.2.1999, 1.
32. See Pennings, 'Inclusion and Exclusion of Persons and Benefits in the New Co-ordination Regulation', in: Spaventa and Dougan (eds.), Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford: Hart 2005, 245-246,
33. and Martinsen, 'Social Security Regulation in the EU: The De-terrorialization of Welfare?', in: De Burea (ed.), EU Law and the Welfare State. In Search of Solidarity, Oxford: University Press 2005, 95-96.
34. Council Regulation 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provision of Regulation 1408/71 and Regulation 574/72 to national of third, countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality, OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, 1. This Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 63 (4) EC Treaty, making it possible for the Community legislature to adopt measures defining the rights and conditions under which nationals of third countries who are legally resident in a Member State may reside in other Member States.
35. See first recital to Regulation 859/2003.
36. See for instance Case C-2/89 Kits van Heijningen [1990] ECR I-1755, para 12;
37. Case C-275/96 Kuusijärvi [1998] ECR I-3419, para 28
38. and Case C-227/03 Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën [2005] ECR I-6101, para 34.
39. See on the discussion on the lex locis laboris: Pennings, 'Co-ordination of social security on the basis of the State-of-employment principle: Time for an alternative?', 42 CML Rev. (2005), 67-89;
40. Pieters, 'Towards a Radical Simplification of Social Security Co-ordination', in: Schoukens (ed.), Prospects of Social Security Co-ordination, Leuven: ACCO 1997, 189-194.
41. Case C-347/98, Commission v Belgium [2001] ECR, 1-3327, para 28 and 29
42. and Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën, cited above note 23, para 35.
43. Kits van Heijningen, cited above note 23, para 19;
44. Kuusijärvi, cited above note 23, para 29
45. and Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën, cited above note 23, para 33.
46. Art. 10 of Regulation 1408/71.
47. See for instance Pinna, cited above note 16.
48. Art. 69 of Regulation 1408/71.
49. See also Case C-406/04, De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947.
50. See Article 4(4) of Regulation 1408/71.
51. See for instance Case 1/72, Frilli [1972] ECR 457;
52. Case 187/73, Callemeyn [1974] ECR 5,53;
53. Case 63/76, Inzirillo [1976] ECR 2057;
54. Case 139/82, Piscitello [1983] ECR 1427;
55. Joined Cases 379-381/85 and 93/86, Giletti and others [1987] ECR 955.
56. By Regulation 1247/92 of 30.4.1992, OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, 1.
57. See in more detail on this discussion: Van der Mei, 'Regulation 1408/71 and co-ordination of social non-contributory benefit schemes', 27 EL Rev. (2002), 551-566.
58. Directive 90/364 of 28.6.1990 on the right of residence, OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, 26;
59. Directive 90/365 of 28.6.1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity, OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, 28 and
60. Directive 93/96 of 29.10.1993 on the right of residence for students, OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, 59.
61. Case C-20/96, Snares [1997] ECR I-6057.
62. Case C-297/96, Partridge [1998] ECR I-3467.
63. The UK 'Disability living allowance' and 'Attendance Allowance'.
64. Case C-215/99, Jauch [2001] ECR I-1901, on the Austrian 'Care Allowance' ('Pflegegeld').
65. See on a comparable benefit: Case C- 286/03, Hosse [2006] ECR I-1771.
66. Case C-43/99, Leclere [2001] ECR I-4265 on the Luxembourg 'Maternity allowances' ('Allocation de maternité').
67. Case C-160/02, Skalka [2004] ECR I-5613, on the Austrian 'Compensatory supplement to pensions' ('Ausgleichzulage für Alterspensionen).
68. Case C-154/05, Kersbergen-Lap [2006] ECR I-6249 on the Dutch, 'Incapacity benefit for disabled young people' ('Wajong').
69. Case C-265/05, Perez Naranjo (judgement of 16 January 2007, not yet reported), on the French 'Supplementary allowance from the National Solidarity Fund' ('Allocation supplémentaire du Fonds national de solidarité').
70. OJ L 117, 4.5.2005, 1.
71. This definition was already agreed in 2004 in Regulation 833/2004 (Article 70).
72. Case C-299/05, pending.
73. The Finnish 'Child care allowance', the Swedish 'Disability allowance and care allowance for disabled children' and the UK 'Disability Living Allowance, 'Attendance Allowance' and 'Carer's Allowance'.
74. As amended, by Regulation 647/2005, cited above note 43.
75. A similar provision can be found in Article 70(4) of Regulation 883/2004.
76. A similar provision is contained in the general Article 6 of Regulation 883/2004 on aggregation of periods, which also applies to the special non-contributory cash benefits as defined by its Article 70.
77. Case C-356/89, Newton [1991] ECR I-3017.
78. Newton, cited above note 50, para 16.
79. In paragraph 48 of Snares (cited above note 35) the ECJ stated that: 'Furthermore, benefit entitlement is not conditional on the claimant's having previously been subject to the social security legislation of the State in which he applies for the benefit, whereas this was the case prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 1247/92'.
80. Case C-90/97, Swaddling [1999] ECR I-1075.
81. Swaddling, cited above note 53, para 25.
82. For the purpose of applying the different provisions of Regulation 1408/71, 'residence' is opposed to 'stay' which is defined in Article 1(i) as meaning 'temporary residence'.
83. Swaddling, cited above note 53, para 28.
84. Swaddling, cited above note 53, para 29-30.
85. In para 33 the ECJ says: 'Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71, read together with Article 1 (h) thereof, precludes the Member State of origin -....- from making entitlement to one of the benefits referred, to in Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71 conditional upon habitual residence in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there'.
86. COM(2006)16 of 31.1.2006.
87. See Council document 9584/06 ADD1 on http://register.consilium.europa.eu/ pdf/en/06/st09/st09584-ad01.en06.pdf.
88. For both of these Regulations the Community legislature is the European Parliament together with the Council acting as co-deciders, the latter even under the unanimity rule of Articles 42 and 308 EC which form the legal basis of these regulations.
89. Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29.4.2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, 77;
90. 1st corrigendum OJ L 228, 29.6.2004, 35;
91. 2nd corrigendum (only for the English version) in OJ L 197, 28.7.2005, 34.
92. Van de Mei, Free Movement of Persons within the European Community Cross border Access to Public Benefits, Oxford: Hart 2003, 457.
93. For a similar conclusion see: Fillon, 'La citoyenneté de l'Union européenne et la coordination des régimes de sé curité sociale'', Journal des tribunaux du travail (1999), 401.
94. See on the notion of residence in these legal instruments above under no 2.5.
95. See also Fillon, 'La citoyenneté de l'Union européenne et la coordination des régimes de sécurité sociale', supra note 64, 395-396.
96. See recital no 16 in the preamble to this Directive.
97. Case C-200/02, Zhu and Chen, [2004] ECR I-9925, para 30-31.
98. See also Case C-408/03, Commission v. Belgium [2006] ECR I-2647, para 40.
99. Directive 2003/1009 of 25 November 2003, OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, 44.
100. A second Member State for the purpose of Directive 2003/109 means any Member State other than the one which for the first time granted long-term resident status to a third-country national and in which that long-term resident exercises the right of residence. See Article 2(d) Directive 2003/109.
101. Only the position of third-country nationals in the second Member State is discussed, here because Regulation 859/2003 is only applicable in situations which are not confined in all respects within a single Member State. The latter is the case with third-country nationals having obtained a long-term resident status in one Member State without this person having a link with any other Member State.
102. This directive was adopted on 25 November 2003.
103. Case C-85/96, Martinez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691.
104. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193.
105. Case C-456/02, Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573.
106. Case C-224/98, D'Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191.
107. Case C-138/02, Collins [2004] ECR I-2703.
108. Case C-209/03, Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119.
109. This view is expressed by Golynker, 'Jobseekers's rights In the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity", 30 EL Rev. (2005), 120,
110. and Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', 42 CML, Rev. (2005), 1245-1267.
111. Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1265
112. and Martin, 'De Martinez Sala à Bidar, les paradoxes de la jurisprudence sur la libre circulation des citoyens', in: Carlier and Guild (eds.) The Future of Free Movement of Persons in the EU, Brussels: Bruylant 2006, 163 and 166-167.
113. Golynker, 'Jobseekers' rights in the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity', supra note 79, 117-118.
114. See for a negative answer to this question: Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79
115. and Niemann, 'Von der Unionbürgerschaft zur Sozialunion', Europarecht (2004), 949.
116. As suggested by: Dewaele, 'Vrij verkeer van personen en het recht op sociale uitkeringen: de Europese burger als paard van Troje', Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees recht (2004), 325;
117. Larkin, 'The Limits to European Social Citizenship in the United Kingdom', 68 ML Rev. (2005), 440-442,
118. and Straetmans, 'Non-economic free movement of European Union citizens and family law matters. Does the internal market have any limit?', in: Meeusen, Pertegas, Straetmans and Swennen (eds.), International Family Law for the European Union, Antwerpen and Oxford: Intersentia 2007, 237.
119. Golyncker, 'Jobseekers' rights in the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity', supra note 79, 121. This author even talks about 'changing paradigm of social solidatity'.
120. Dougan, "The Court helps those who help themselves... The legal status of migrant work-seekers under Community law in the light of the Collins judgement', 7 European Journal of Social Security (2005), 18.
121. Ferrera, 'Towards an "Open" Social Citizenship. The New Boundaries of Welfare in the European Union', in: De Bruca, EU Law and the Welfare State. In Search of Solidarity, Oxford: University Press 2005, 24.
122. Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice, Oxford: University Press 2006, 531.
123. See also Dougan, 'Fees, Grants, Loans and Dole Cheques: who covers the costs of migrant education within the EU?', 42 CML Rev. (2005), 955.
124. See for instance the ECJ's interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation 1612/68 in Case C-237/94, O'Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617.
125. See also: Ach, 'La citoyenneté européenne au service d'une Europe sociale'', Journal des tribunaux droit européen (2006), 133-134;
126. Lenaerts and Heremans, 'Contours of a European Social Union in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice', 2 European Constitutional Law Review (2006), 103,
127. and Van der Mei, 'Union Citizenship and the "De- Nationalitsation" of the Territorial Welfare State', 7 EJML (2005), 207-209.
128. Grzelzyck, cited above note 74, para 44.
129. Collins, cited above note 77, para 67-69.
130. Bidar, cited above note 78, para 57.
131. Grzelzyck, cited above note 74, para 43
132. and Trojani, cited above note 75, para 36.
133. Lenaerts and Heremans, 'Contours of a European Social Union In the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice', supra note 89, 195.
134. White, 'Free movement, equal treatment, and citizenship of the Union', 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2005), 905.
135. Barnard, 'EU Citizenship and the Principle of Solidarity', in: Spaventa, and Dougan, Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford: Hart 2005, 160,
136. and Straetmans, 'Non-economic free movement of European Union citizens and family law matters. Does the internal market have any limit?', supra note 83, 229 and 234.
137. Grzelzyck, cited above note 74, para 44.
138. Collins, cited above note 77, para 67-69.
139. Bidar, cited above note 78, para 57.
140. Collins, cited above note 77, para 65.
141. Collins, cited above note 77, para 69-70.
142. The UK 'Income-based allowances for jobseekers' were introduced in Annex IIa by Regulation 3096/95 of 22 December 1995, OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, 10.
143. Mr Collins was born in the United States and possesses dual Irish and American nationality. As part of his college studies, he spent one semester in the United Kingdom in 1978. In 1980 and 1981 he returned there for a stay of approximately 10 months, during which he did part-time and casual work in pubs and bars and in sales. He went back to the United States in 1981. He subsequently worked, in the United States and in Africa. Mr Collins returned to the United Kingdom on 31 May 1998 in order to find work there in the social services sector. On 8 June 1998 he claimed jobseekers allowance, which was refused by decision of an adjudication officer of 1 July 1998, on the ground that he was not habitually resident in the United. Kingdom.
144. See above under point 2.1. on the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71.
145. See in this sense also: Golynker, 'jobseekers's rights in the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity', supra note 79, 118.
146. Judgment to be found on: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/ judgmentsfiles/j4094/collins_v_sswp_0406.htm.
147. See paragraphs 80-81 of the judgment of the UK Court of Appeal of 4 April 2006.
148. It is however surprising to read In this judgement of the UK Court of Appeal its view that Swaddling would prove that the habitual residence test is well-recognised by Community law and compatible with the provisions of Regulation 1408/71 under discussion in that case (see para 82 of the judgement of 4 April 2006). Swaddling seems on the contrary crystal clear on that point in its paragraph 33 and in the dictum saying that: 'Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71, read together with Article 1 (h) thereof precludes the Member State of origin -....- from making entitlement to one of the benefits referred to in Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71 conditional upon habitual residence in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there'.
149. See for more details on this above under point 2.5.
150. Barnard writes: "The Court does seem to recognise that his process need to be taken slowly: if it expects too much of citizenship as a means it might - in the long term - frustrate citizenship as an end. In other words, if the Court were to require full equality of treatment In respect of all migrants from day one of their arrival in the host state this would be appreciated by migrant citizens but not by the non-migrant citizens (the national taxpayers) in the host State. Indeed such moves could well generate such hostility and anti-migrant feeling among host State nationals that, far from fostering a sense of Union citizenship, it reinforces a sense of nationalism and xenophobia': Barnard, 'EU Citizenship and the Principle of Solidarity', supra note 96, 174-175.
151. This position seems to be supported by several other commentators like Dougan and Spaventa, '"Wish You Weren't Here...". New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', in: Spaventa and Dougan, Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford: Hart 2005, 183 and 191;
152. Golynker, 'Jobseekers's rights in the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity', supra note 79, 121;
153. Reich, "The Constitutional Relevance of Citizenship and Free Movement in an Enlarged Union', 11 EL Journal (2005), 698,
154. and Straetmans, 'Non-economic free movement of European Union citizens and family law matters. Does the internal market have any limit?', supra note 83, 237.
155. Dougan, "The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship', 31 EL Rev. (2006), 623.
156. See Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice, supra note 87, 530;
157. Dougan, 'Fees, Grants, Loans and Dole Cheques; Who Covers the Costs of Migrant Education within the EU?', supra note 87, 943;
158. and Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1264-1266.
159. Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1251.
160. Reich, 'Citizenship and Family on Trail: a fairy optimistic Overview of recent Court Practice with regard to Free Movement of Persons', CML Rev. (2003), 627.
161. Van de Mei, Free Movement of Persons within the European Community Cross border Access to Public Benefits, supra note 63, 460.
162. A parallel can be drawn with the rule of Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation 1408/71 providing that a frontier worker who is wholly unemployed is not entitled to unemployment benefit in the State where he was last employed, even if he paid contributions there, but is obliged to become affiliated to the social security scheme of the Member State in which he resides and to receive in that State, during the period in which he lives there, the unemployment benefits provided for by its legislation. The ECJ confirmed about this rule that 'it is true that application of the provision thus interpreted allows workers to receive unemployment benefits from a Member State in which they had not paid contributions during their last employment. However that is a consequence intended by the Community legislature, which meant to ensure that workers were given the best chance of finding new employment' (Case C-454/93, Van Gestel ECR [1995] 1-1707, para 26). The Court seems to be respectful for the European legislature's choice to make another Member State financially responsible for paying unemployment benefits than the Member State that received contributions from the unemployed person during his working life.
163. Oosterom-Staples and Vazquez-Munoz, 'Burgerscliap van de Unie', SEW Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht (2005), 505,
164. and Nagy, 'Enlargement and the Free Movement of Persons', in: Carlier and Guild (eds.), The Future of Free Movement of Persons in the EU, Brussels: Bruylant 2006, 157.
165. See also Dougan and Spaventa, '"Wish You Weren't Here...". New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', supra note 11, 183.
166. In his criticism to the ECJ case law Hailbronner seems to reject both the idea of Community action in the field of social policy and the idea of equal treatment for not economically active persons: Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1258-1267.
167. Van de Mei, Free Movement of Persons within the European Community Cross border Access to Public Benefits, supra note 63, 468.
168. Judgment of 16 September1996, Gaygusuz v. Austria, No. 17371/90 [1996] ECHR 36. This case concerned discrimination on grounds of nationality for the entitlement to unemployment benefits.
169. Decision of 6 July 2005, Stec and others v UK, No. 65731/01 and 65900/01, para 46.
170. Stec, para 50-51.
171. Stec, para 53.
172. Stec, para 55.
173. In his assessment of the ECJ's case law on minimum subsistence benefits and European citizenship, Hailbronner seems to completely ignore these developments in the ECtHR' case law. He still refers to Gaygusuz and the case law of the ECtHR on property rights as if it is limited to social benefits based upon contributions: Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1266-1267.
174. See on the application of the concept of indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality in the case of EU migrant workers: Case C-237/94, O'Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617.
175. Gaygusuz, cited above note 121, para 42. This means in fact a change of burden of proof: it is up to the state involved to prove that there is indeed an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment of migrant persons.
176. See in the same sense: Groenendijk, 'Citizens and Third Country Nationals: Differential Treatment or Discrimination?', in: Carlier and Guild (eds.) The Future of Free Movement of Persons in the EU, Brussels: Bruylant 2006, 81.
177. Part II of this Treaty incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which has been solemnly proclaimed by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, 1).
178. See: 'Updated Explanations relating to the text of the Charter of Fundamental rights', document CONV 828/1/03 of 18.7.2003, to be found on: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00828-re01en03.pdf.
179. See also on this subject the comments in: Guild, 'Citizenship and Fundamental Rights', in: Carlier and Guild, (eds.) The Future of Free Movement of Persons in the EU, Brussels: Bruylant 2006, 57-59.
180. See most recently Case C-540/03, European Parliament v Council, ECR (2006), 1-5769 (die family reunification Directive case), para 35.
181. European Parliament v Council, cited above note 130, para 38.
182. See for instance: Traser, Who is still Afraid of EU Enlargement?, Brussels, European Citizen Action Service (2006), to be consulted, on: http://www.ecas.org/file_uploads/1182.pdf.
183. See also Van der Mei, 'Residence and the Evolving Notion of European Union Citizenship', EJML (2003) 432.
184. Trojani, cited above note 75, para 43.
185. Grzelzcyk, cited above note 74, para 44.
186. D'Hoop, cited above note 76, para 38
187. and Collins, cited above note 77, para 67-69.
188. Bidar, cited, above note 78, para 57.
189. See for instance Swaddling, cited above note 53.
190. See also on the unclear character of the conditions used by the ECJ: Bulterman and Slot, 'Harmonsatie van wetgeving betreffende migrerende EU-burgers en derdelanders: op weg naar een uniform toetsingskader?', SEW Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht (2005), 350;
191. Dougan and Spaventa, '"Wish You Weren't Here...". New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', supra note 11, 204-205;
192. O'Leary, 'Solidarity and Citizenship Rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union', in: De Burea, EU Law and the Welfare State. In Search of Solidarity, Oxford: University Press 2005, 73-75,
193. and Van der Mei, 'Regulation 1408/71 and co-ordination of social non-contributory benefit schemes, supra note 33, 563-566.
194. Dougan and Spaventa, refer to the cultural difference between Member States in perceiving the basis for solidarity: 'Given the difficulties involved in assessing the proportionality of residency requirements as regards welfare benefits, the end result reached by domestic judges is very likely to vary - especially across different Member States - according to the manner in which the welfare system is organised, and the way in which, social provision itself is culturally perceived': Dougan and Spaventa, '"Wish You Weren't Here...". New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', supra note 11, 204.
195. Straetmans, 'Non-economic free movement of European Union citizens and family law matters. Does the internal market have any limit?', supra note 83, 223-224.
196. Article 24(2) Directive 2004/38 exempts Member States from conferring entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or, as regards jobseekers, during the period of search for work. As regards students it exempts Member States for a period up to 5 years to grant maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans.
197. Dougan, 'The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship', supra note 111, 630-631.
198. Brand, 'Comments on Case C-209/03 Bidar', 12 Columbia Journal of European Law (2005), 299;
199. Bulterman and Slot, 'Harmonsatie van wetgeving betreffende migrerende EU-burgers en derdelanders: op weg naar een uniform toetsingskader?', supra note 137, 353;
200. Candela Soriano, 'Libre circulation et séjour dans l'U.E.: Ia directive 2004/38 au regard des droits de l'homme', Journal, des tribunaux. Droit européen (2005), 200;
201. Dougan, 'The Court helps those who help themselves... The legal status of migrant work-seekers under Community law in the light of the Collins judgement', supra note 85, 22-24 and 30-31;
202. Golynker, 'Jobseekers's rights in the European Union: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity', supra note 79, 119;
203. and Hailbronner, 'Union citizenship and access to social benefits', supra note 79, 1264.
204. See Martinsen, 'Social Security Regulation in the EU: The De-terrorialization of Welfare?', supra note 20, 92,
205. and Pieters, 'Towards a Radical Simplification of the Social Security Co-ordination', supra note 24, 182-183.
206. See amongst others: Ach, 'La citoyenneté européenne au service d'une Europe sociale', supra note 89, 132 ;
207. Davies, Any place I Hang May Hat? Or: Residence as the New Nationality', 11 EL Journal (2005), 52;
208. Lhernould, 'L'accès aux prestations sociales des citoyens de l'Union européenne', Droit social (2001), 1106;
209. and Van de Mei, Free Movement of Persons within the European Community Cross border Access to Public Benefits, supra note 63, 468.
210. See on these attempts above under point 2.5.
211. See Case C-11/06 Morgan, pending
212. and Case C-12/06 Bucher, pending.
213. Ferrera, 'Towards an "Open" Social Citizenship. The New Boundaries of Welfare in the European Union', supra 86, 24 et seq.
214. Handoll, 'Conclusions', in: Carlier and Guild (eds.) The Future of Free Movement of Persons in the EU, Brussels: Bruylant 2006, 172-173.
215. Dougan and Spaventa, ' "Wish You Weren't Here...". New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union', supra note 11, 208.