Alimanovic v Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln Case C-67/14 EU:C:2015:597

Nazifa Alimanovic and her children were Swedish nationals who had previously lived in Germany and later returned there. Alimanovic and an older daughter undertook a series of temporary jobs lasting less than one year in total. When the work ended involuntarily, they received German basic-provision benefits while seeking further employment. The Jobcenter later withdrew subsistence benefits from the able-to-work family members under national rules excluding certain foreign jobseekers, although payments for younger children were treated differently. The German court asked whether the exclusion was compatible with equal treatment under EU law. The family had initially retained worker status under Directive 2004/38, but the six-month period applicable after less than one year's work had expired.

Could Germany refuse social assistance after the claimants' six-month retained-worker period expired, while they remained resident as jobseekers with a genuine chance of employment?

The Grand Chamber held that the exclusion was permitted. Under Article 7(3)(c) of Directive 2004/38, a person involuntarily unemployed after working for less than one year retains worker status for at least six months. Once that period ended, the claimants could remain as jobseekers under Article 14(4)(b), provided they continued seeking work and had a genuine chance of engagement. Article 24(2), however, allowed the host state to withhold social assistance during that jobseeking residence. The Directive itself had progressively calibrated the relevant personal circumstances by status and duration, so Germany was not required to conduct a further individual proportionality assessment before applying the benefits exclusion to this category.

A former worker employed for less than one year retains worker status for at least six months after involuntary unemployment. Once that period expires, continued residence as a jobseeker does not prevent the host state relying on Article 24(2) to refuse social assistance.

Alimanovic builds on Dano but concerns former workers rather than a person who had never sought employment. It shows why residence status can change over time and why worker status, retained worker status and jobseeker residence must be analysed separately. The Court treated the Directive's temporal categories as embodying the necessary proportionality assessment, reducing the need for an additional individual inquiry into benefit refusal. The ruling does not permit expulsion of a genuine jobseeker solely for seeking assistance. After Brexit, its direct UK relevance depends on applicable withdrawal and domestic immigration arrangements.