Union politicians react aroused to the opinion of the EU Commission on the award of social benefits to immigrants
A precise examination of "Individual" calls on the EU Commission to award social benefits to immigrants. The social courts and conditional authorities should look closely. The Commission’s opinion on an attached procedure of the European Court of Justice, according to SZ, requires concrete, EU law according to SZ "to interpret that there is a regulation of a member state like the in the…) SGB II opposes". Even an EU burger without work thire — after a three-month stay — "not under all circumstances and automatically" be excluded from social benefits.
The conflict to which the EU Commission indicates, is therefore in different scope for the interpretation that the Union law against the German Social Code. preserved. However, there are already different directives in the context of the European legal capacity: European law is in the demonstration of the sovereignty of domestic regulations in the member states to the principle of equal treatment of EU burger "unambiguous", like a report of the FAZ of 2. January:
In the center of the dispute, however, are essentially two — European — regulations, which are the problem of immigration within the boundaries of the EU contrary loose: the European "Regulation on the coordination of social security systems" realizes that all EU burgers have to be treated equally.
The same question regulates the "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29. April 2004 on the law of the Union burgers and their family-to-party attention", However, with the exact result: this "Union Burger Directive" allows the Member States to exclude EU foreigners from social assistance.
In addition, Deutsche Landessozialgerichte’s trap, in which it was the approval of Hartz IV services for immigrants who "Stop only for work in Germany", So have not paid anything to the social budget, "very different" to have.
From this, it would first be concluded inherently the conclusion that there is legal uncertainty here, which requires the legal clarification of a higher instance. Why also two exemplary cases from Germany to the European Court of Justice were overlooked: the case of a Swedish family and the case of a Romanian mother, which offered the reason for the EU Commission opinion, which has been providing for excess comments since yesterday’s disclosure (see "Hartz-IV also for immigrants who are not actively looking for a work"To).
The situation — it is only an opinion, the relevant signal, which actually praises a legal orientation, comes to the ECJ judge-based — had advanced and waiting, foresight. But this is counteracting that some politicians wanted to drive fast profits, hoping to profiling on this topic. If there are no major differences between Union and SPD in many ways, then the "Questionnaire" attached to "Social sky" hold up.
Accordingly, the CSU has begun the year of many elections to put on provincial peculiarities. From experiences with the success of the Republicans Mid to the end of the 1980s, she has become wise, she does not let her cream from others when populism. How closely on Bavarian individual interests can be found in the opinion of the chairman Seehofers to read the opinion of the EU Commission.
Top politician of the Union "angry"
"This is how the approval is harmed to the European idea", said Seehofer, taking out the steady side bushes to the EU from ranks of the CSU, which have nothing or little to do with the approval of the European idea. "The Commission often acts without truly know the life realities", supplemented Seehofer and meant with "Lifetime" In particular, its plan of the toll for foreigners, whom the EU has set up a few barriers.
All union politicians who reported to the topic, it seems, so it seems to the same horn, which is already going to distribute already on lurking social benefit tourists. Equally several top politicians of the Union were "angry" and attack the Commission, is reported today. Volker Kauder warned, the view of the EU Commission was prevalent, "There was probably a significant influx of people who have come to Germany because of Hartz-IV payments alone." And built a straw man to:
It does not make sense to deny the topic of poverty immigration, even if we will need many new professionals from abroad in the next year.
The fact that the statement of the EU Commission has denied the ie of poverty immigration, which is not all known from the opinion known from the opinion. Principal festival also gave rise to Deputy CDU Chairman Armin Lashet, who pointed out that the EU builds on the basic principle that only the benefits obtained, which also has paid a bit:
This principle must be maintained, otherwise everyone can also the social system, which is most favorable for him.
That was probably, but on the other hand, the demand for examination of single traps of the EU Commission is not aimed at. The spokeswoman of the EU Commission stressed this last night after the first anti-unlaws from Germany to Brussel were to Horen, again.
The fact that the CSU indoor expert Hans-Peter Uhl calls for a stronger data exchange to get the abuse of social benefits through immigrants, attending the resistant companion music of almost all political topics.
It is interesting that in all the excitement in addition to the restricted relevance of the EU position paper to the ECJ procedure, apparently aspects of the immigration / social assistance problem will look over.
So it is called from circles of the EU Commission that Germany could better use the EU Social Fund to help with the problem, which provides the actual Angstein image for the discussion: the difficulties with poverty migrants in coarse dates, clearer: with Sinti and Roma families from Bulgaria and Romania. Germany CONNE connovers more means from the EU fund, can be understood as a report of the FAS.