Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig Case C-333/13 EU:C:2014:2358
Dano confirms that Directive 2004/38 links equal access to social assistance with a lawful right of residence. Economically inactive citizens who lack sufficient resources cannot rely on equal treatment to obtain benefits intended to fund residence.
Facts
Elisabeta Dano, a Romanian national, lived in Germany with her young son. She had not entered Germany to seek work, had not worked there and showed no intention of finding employment. They lived with and were supported by a relative. Dano applied to Jobcenter Leipzig for German basic-provision benefits covering subsistence, accommodation and heating. German law excluded certain foreign nationals whose residence was connected to jobseeking, while EU rules coordinated some special non-contributory cash benefits. The national court asked whether Articles 18 and 20 TFEU, Regulation 883/2004 and Directive 2004/38 required equal access. The central factual point was that Dano was economically inactive and did not have sufficient resources to meet the Directive's conditions for residence beyond three months.
Legal Issue
May a host Member State refuse social assistance to an economically inactive Union citizen who lacks sufficient resources and therefore has no right of residence under Directive 2004/38?
Held
The Grand Chamber held that the refusal was compatible with EU law. Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 confers equal treatment on Union citizens residing on the basis of the Directive. For residence beyond three months, an economically inactive person must generally possess sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance under Article 7(1)(b). Dano did not satisfy those conditions and could not invoke the Directive's equal-treatment rule to claim benefits whose purpose was to meet basic subsistence needs. Regulation 883/2004 classified the payments as special non-contributory cash benefits and required equal treatment within its field, but it did not itself create a right of residence or prevent the residence conditions governing social assistance from applying.
⭐ Legal Principle
An economically inactive Union citizen who does not meet Directive 2004/38's conditions for lawful residence beyond three months cannot rely on Article 24 equal treatment to claim host-state social assistance. EU citizenship does not make residence conditions irrelevant to benefit entitlement.
Significance
Dano marked a restrictive turn in citizenship and welfare case law after the broader language of Grzelczyk. It emphasises the legislative structure of Directive 2004/38 and the connection between lawful residence and equal treatment. The decision does not authorise nationality discrimination against workers, people retaining worker status or citizens who otherwise reside under EU law. Nor does benefit refusal necessarily establish a power of immediate expulsion, which is separately regulated. Alimanovic later applied the Directive's specific jobseeker rules. After Brexit, Dano remains important to EU law and relevant withdrawal arrangements, but does not create a general current UK benefit right.
Common exam questions about this case
Why could Dano not rely on Article 24 equal treatment?
Article 24 protects Union citizens residing in the host state on the basis of Directive 2004/38. As an economically inactive person staying beyond three months, Dano needed sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance. She lacked the resources and therefore did not hold the relevant residence right from which equal access to social assistance would follow.
Did Regulation 883/2004 independently give Dano a right to reside?
No. The Regulation coordinates national social-security systems and classified the German payments as special non-contributory cash benefits, but it did not confer a free-standing residence entitlement. The conditions in Directive 2004/38 still governed whether an economically inactive citizen resided on a basis carrying equal-treatment rights in relation to the social assistance claimed.
Does Dano apply in the same way to an EU worker?
No. Workers, self-employed people and those retaining those statuses have distinct and stronger residence and equal-treatment rights under the Directive and Treaty. Dano concerned a person who was economically inactive, was not seeking employment and lacked sufficient resources. A problem question must identify the claimant's actual residence category before using the decision.