• immigration
• benefits system
• the UK
• EUlaw
• free movement
• Directive 2004/38

One of the main topic which currently fuels the public debate and political campaigns in the UK is the exercise of free movement of EU migrants, as, while the net migration of non-EU migrant seems to have decrease, the net migration of EU citizens in the UK is reaching is highest pick ever. The government led by the Prime Minister David Cameron, in order to respect its politic agenda and to oppose the euro-sceptical right-wing party – UKIP- has approved several reforms between 2013 and 2014 against EU migrants’ access to benefits, especially for those who are jobseekers or on low income.

In Chapter 1, I analysed how the concept of free movement in the UK was born and has been developed since then at European level, focusing on Directive 2004/38/EC on Right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States and further developments. Then, I look in detail at the Immigration EEA Regulations 2006, which has implemented the Citizens’ Directive in the UK and I highlighted the existence of discrepancies with the Directive, amendments and new proposals to modify it and the Directive itself.

In Chapter 2, I focused on the principle of equal treatment under EU law and on grounds of removal from the host Member State, especially where a EU migrant has become an “unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the UK”. After that, I did a research on the benefits system in the UK, analysing its structure, the difference between social assistance, social security and SNCBs, what are the principle benefits, who is entitled and how much is the amount received, paying particularly attention to a plan of reforms entered into force between 2013 and 2014 which had the effect to curb the access to non-contributory benefits to EU (non-British) jobseekers or economically inactive persons. Finally, I tried to process and compare official data on immigration and access to benefits in order to verify if effectively EU migrants are burden on the British welfare state.

In Chapter 3, I have recalled the most famous judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on derivative right of residence for third-country family members of a EU citizen: Chen, Baumbast, Ibrahim, Teixira, Carpenter, Zambrano and McCarthy. Then I concentrated on Zambrano derivative right of residence as the CJEU exercised its creative role very broadly and this has had lot of influence and reactions from the side of Member States. In the UK, it’s very difficult to obtain a right of residence as a Zambrano carer since the national courts and authorities gave a strict construction of the main principle contained in Zambrano judgment as well as they are not able to access non-contributory benefits at all.
Eventually, I tried to make some general observations on the relationship between the Court of Justice and its creative ruling on the one hand and the influence and the reactions of Member States on the other hand, in order to see what the consequences could they be and how much discretion Member States keep at present.