AEMI

170 AEMI JOURNAL 2015 2016
in poor conditions in his or her home
Member state, has obviously less needs
than a French or German citizen. The
fact that he or she is living under what is
considered by the host Member state as
self-sufficient does not mean that his or
her needs are not fulfilled 33 . Should not
the self-sufficiency criterion be based on
the capacity of the mobile Union citizen
to fulfill his or her needs without relying
unreasonably to the host social assistance
system rather than on national
references based on the richness of the
host country?
Freedom of movement of persons in
the EU is also facing a growing phenomenon
as a consequence of the economic
crisis: the rise of the number of
one particular category of economically
inactive Union citizens, non-self-sufficient
Union citizens, not capable of fulfilling
their own needs, such as beggars
and homeless people. These persons are
not benefiting from a right of residence
for stays in excess of three months according
to Directive 20034/38/EC. National
approaches towards such category
of economically inactive Union citizens
vary from one State to another ranging
from passive tolerance to expulsion on
the ground of threat to public policy or
of unreasonable burden on the social
assistance system of the host Member
state.
The present time is not favorable for
freedom of movement of economically
inactive Union citizens. The recent refugee
crisis is currently pulling the attention
of politicians, European and national
institutions and the general public away
from economically inactive Union citizens.
Nevertheless, we should not forget
that in 2013, the Federal Minister of the
Interior of Austria, the Federal Minister
of the Interior of Germany, the Minister
for Immigration of the Netherlands and
the Secretary of State for the Home Department
of United Kingdom wrote a
common letter to Commissioners Reding,
Malmstrom and Andor denouncing
the fraudulent and abusing use of freedom
of movement by Union citizens.
The reasons argued by these states were
the considerable strain put upon their
vital local services, their social assistance
system and their national citizens. They
were requiring from the Commission
legal and financial measures allowing
more effective sanctions, such as a ban
on re-entry after an expulsion order.
The European Commission answered
these claims by stating that, according
to figures communicated by Member
States and a study published in October
2013 by the European Commission, in
most EU countries 34 EU citizens from
other Member States use welfare benefits
no more intensively than the host
country‘s nationals 35 . Moreover, as Paul
Minderhoud recalls, access to social assistance
remains, in most Member States,
far from being unconditional 36 and
so just accessible to a few. Some more
recent events surrounding the Brexit,
such as the requirements of the United
Kingdom to condition the freedom of
movement of mobile workers, is much
more worrisome. Such a step would destroy
the fundamental right of freedom
of movement of Union citizens that has
existed since the foundation of the EEC
for mobile workers. It is a very dangerous
step that is questioning the existence
of the European Union and its
first version, the European Economic
Community, putting into doubt the vi-