(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-488/21 | Chief Appeals Officer and Others
Advocate General ?apeta: an EU mobile worker’s mother can claim a social benefit without this calling into question her right of residence
The principle of equal treatment does not allow such a relative to be considered an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the State of residence
Kind regards,
Vittorio Quartetti
Trainee
Press and Information Unit
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Co
mmunications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 33
/
23

Luxembourg,
16

February 2023

Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion
in Case
C
–
488/2
1

|
Chief Appeals Officer
and Others

Advocate General
Ä?apeta
:
an
EU mobile workerâ??s
mother

can claim
a
social
benefit without this calling
into question
her

r
ight of residence

The principle of equal treatment does not allow
such
a
relative

to be considered
an unreasonable burden on
the social assistance system of
the
State

of residence

GV is a national of Romania and the mother of AC, a Romanian citizen
residin
g

and work
ing

in Ireland. AC is also a
naturalised Irish citizen. GV joined her daughter in Ireland in 2017 and has
legally
resided there ever since.
During
the past 15 years, s
he
has been financially dependent on AC
.
In

2017, GV suffered degenerative chan
ges in her
arthritis
, after which she
made an application for Disability Allowance under the
Irish
Social Welfare Conso
lidation
Act 2005
.

That request was refused
on the ground

that under the
relevant
Irish law

GV must not become an unreasonable
burden on
the national social assistance system
.

The Court of Appeal (Ireland) has, in essence, asked the Court of Justice
whether
the
Citizen
ship
Directive

1

precludes Irish legislation that allows such refusal
.

In todayâ??s Opinion, Advocate General Tamara Ä?apeta
considers that

the condition of dependency of the direct
ascendant on a mobile EU worker is required
for as long as

that

right of residence is derived

from the right of free
movement exercised by th
at

work
er
.
At the same time
,
AG Ä?apeta takes the view

that the Court
should
embrace
a
broad concept of dependency
, which
should be deemed to
exist whenever a person is in need of the material,
financial, physical or emotional support of a family member.

Therefore
, even if GV would no longer need the
financial support of her daughter, she might still fulfil the requirement of dependency on which the derived
right of residence is based
.

For that reason
,
the Member State award of financial support does not terminate
the dependency of the supported person
.

Further
,

the
Citizenship

Directive

is
the result of
a

legislative consensus

at the EU level about the acceptable
the
welfare systems of the Member S
tates.

The
outcome of that consensus
is
t
hat

neither mobile EU workers nor their dependent direct ascendants
residing legally in a Member State
can be regarded as an unreasonable burden by th
at

State
. In
accordance
with the
principle of
equal

treatment
,
su
ch family members are an (un)reasonable burden in the same way as
nationals of that State are an (un)reasonable burden
.

Consequently,
a
Member State
cannot
refus
e
access to special non
–
contributory cash benefits to dependent
direct ascendants of mobile EU
workers

on the ground that

they represent an

unreasonable burden on the

1

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29

April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members
to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EE
C) No

1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L

158, p.

77
).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

social assistance system

of that State.

NOTE:

The Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
to propose to the Court, in

Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the
courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not dec
ide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial document fo
r media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
ï?©

(+352) 4
303 3355