Evolution of the European Union's Court of Justice's legal practice in a special field of EU law (free movement of persons)

D'Intino Rita Elisabetta (2016) Evolution of the European Union's Court of Justice's legal practice in a special field of EU law (free movement of persons). Külkereskedelmi Kar.

[img] PDF
D' Intino Rita Elisabetta - Evolution of the Court of Justice of the European Union in a special field %28free movement of persons%29.pdf
Hozzáférés joga: Csak nyilvántartásba vett főiskolai IP címekről nyitható meg

Download (723Kb)

Absztrakt (kivonat)

The main issue of the paper was whether free movement is available to every union citizen or is it just the privilege of the wealthier ones. Because we have to admit the European Union is a unique social and territorial cohesion with its own law system. However, due to its cultural and historical diversity demolishing the obstacles of free movement is maybe harder then someone would think. Through my thesis I analyzed the realization of free movement along with supranational social policy goals. The Social policy goals of the union are presented and the history of the social dimension in order to illustrate how the Integration arrived to the point of cooperation where it is today. By reading this paper the individual realizes that poverty in the Integration is a serious issue and this problem has to be remediated on both national and supranational levels. The cases which are analyzed in chronological order present a strict line of argument which the Court has established. In those cases it is visible that inactive Union citizens chance to receive social benefits from another Member State is low. The benefits claimed by the EU citizens are mostly special non-contributory cash benefits which are not exportable (certain benefits are subjected to the place of residence). The citizens require these social securities based on the regulation 883/2004 and the directive 2004/38/EC of European legislation. It is clear that the individual is more welcome whether it is economically active or ‘have the sufficient sources to live’. Special non-contributory cash benefits are the cornerstone all of the dispute analyzed in this paper. However, these judgments are based on meticulous examination of each situation. As we can see in an earlier judgment (2004) the court ruled preliminary to grant the special non-contributory benefits to the individual living abroad but still in the territory of the Integration. This is probably because the member states are afraid of the phenomenon of ‘social benefit tourism.’ Although in these cases the individuals claim for these special non-contributory cash benefits are rejected in the studies latter nothing suggests that the Intra-EU migration is benefit-related in spite of this there is a huge public debate about the inner EU-migration. As a matter a fact, the studies represent that the benefits granted to intra-EU migrants is relatively small. The conclusion of the study is that although wealthier member states are afraid of that migrants mistrust their social welfare systems. Actually, according to the studies presented by different Institutions (EU Commission, Deutsche Bank) those migrant who receive some sort of social security from another member states are employed in their state of residence therefore they are not considered to be a burden on the hosting state’s social security system. Therefore founded on these studies ‘benefit tourism’ is not a mass phenomenon in the EU. However due to politicians concerns (in several member states especially in the wealthier ones) might mislead the public opinion which could cause irreversible circumstances in the long-run. On the other hand, the principle of free movement is satisfied under the scopes of the treaties although some politicians would like to restrict certain aspects of this freedom which is a fundamental part of Union citizenship, since the Treaty of Maastricht entered into force. But the CJEU’s case-law and the national policies might shepherd the public opinion into another direction regarding this argument. Consequently, a really cardinal question rises up here concerning the future of the Integration; which direction the Community wishes to take?

Magyar cím

Az Európai Unió Bíróságának joggyakorlatának fejlődése egy kifejezett területen (személyek szabad áramlása)

Angol cím

Evolution of the European Union's Court of Justice's legal practice in a special field of EU law (free movement of persons)


Budapesti Gazdasági Egyetem


Külkereskedelmi Kar


Nemzetközi és Európa-tanulmányok Int. Tanszék




Nemzetközi Tanulmányok

Belső konzulens(ek)

Belső konzulens neveBeosztás, tudományos fokozat, intézményEmail
Dr Kreisz BrigittatanársegédKreisz.Brigitta@uni-bge.hu

Mű típusa: diplomadolgozat (NEM RÉSZLETEZETT)
Kulcsszavak: Európai Unió , EU-joghharmonizáció, Európai Unió Bírósága, Szociális jogok, Jog
Felhasználói azonosító szám (ID): Turányi Nóra
Dátum: 2016. Máj. 09. 12:06
Utolsó módosítás: 2017. Már. 30. 10:55

Actions (login required)

Tétel nézet Tétel nézet