tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post1782795001678989447..comments2024-03-28T02:32:17.979-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: Amending EU free movement law: What are the legal limits? Steve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-70611361424303317052014-11-25T13:51:56.689-08:002014-11-25T13:51:56.689-08:00Indeed, but then the Habitual Residence Test (HRT)...Indeed, but then the Habitual Residence Test (HRT) is only applied to to non-UK EEA nationals and some UK nationals who are returning from living abroad, while UK nationals having an automatic right of residence don't have the test applied to them. <br /><br />On the surface that's more discriminatory than what I was suggesting which was that the laws should be amended so that <i>anyone</i> applying for the benefits in question (out-of-work and in-work) <i>must</i> provide proof of residence (perhaps for any five out of the past six or seven years) within the Common Travel Area (or perhaps the UK more exclusively)...with no exceptions for "returning residents/nationals" or anything like that. A straightforward criteria. Either you were resident in the UK for 5 years or you weren't. In that way, all EU citizens, indeed all persons legally permanently resident within the CTA (or maybe just the UK) would be treated equally.<br /><br />Sure it would be indirectly discriminatory but then so is that road tax the Germans plan on introducing in 2016 which would tax all road user but provide Germans with a rebate. If the Germans craft the law right, then it would probably only apply to road users who are not residing in Germany regardless of nationality.<br /><br />Otherwise, if such a 5 year residency requirement is deemed to be illegal by the CJEU even if applied to all persons including UK nationals, then if the UK really is keen on reducing migration from other EU countries and restricting the benefits they can get then the UK should just leave the EU. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-39700363777092792442014-11-25T12:07:00.360-08:002014-11-25T12:07:00.360-08:00The UK already has a rule like that for some benef...The UK already has a rule like that for some benefits, known as the 'habitual residence' test. The Commission is challenging it. Undoubtedly it is not directly discriminatory, but it is indirectly discriminatory, because a residence condition affects more non-nationals than nationals. The CJEU has ruled against such residence conditions in a number of cases involving migrant EU workers' access to benefits. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-32388381699579384992014-11-25T10:26:29.867-08:002014-11-25T10:26:29.867-08:00Wouldn't the easiest way to bring about the de...Wouldn't the easiest way to bring about the desired changes be to amend national law to only allow out-of-work benefits, and in-work benefits to only be claimed by persons (UK citizens or otherwise) once they had been resident in the UK (or maybe the Common Travel Area) for a period of 5 years? In that way UK nationals returning from living overseas would be treated the same as other EEA nationals arriving in the UK for the first time. So basically only EEA nationals who are permanent residents, non-EEA nationals who are permanent residents, and UK nationals who have been living in the UK for the previous 5 years (and thus could be considered permanently resident) would have access to these benefits. In that way there is no legal discrimination and equal treatment for all, but the net effect would be to ensure that all migrants have to wait 5 years to access these benefits.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com