Jun
7
Commission v Belgium [2006]
June 7, 2007 | Leave a Comment
The case concerns the condition under EC law that economically non-active people who wish to reside in the EU must not become an unreasonable financial burden on their host Member State.
As we already know, the economically non-active persons who are nationals of an EU Member State have the right to reside in another Member State if they have sickness insurance and sufficient financial resources. The Belgian state in this context required that, if another person provided the financial resources, there must be a legal link between the two persons.
In fact, in August 1999, Mrs. De Figueiredo, a Portuguese national moved to Belgium, together with her three daughters, in order to reside with her long-term (Belgian) partner. In December 1999, she received a deportation order by the Belgian authorities on the grounds that she did not have sufficient financial resources, although her partner had given an undertaking to support her. The Belgian authorities stated that only the personal resources of the citizen in question could be taken into account. Thus, a guarantee statement by an unmarried partner was not accepted. Further, as Mrs. De Figueiredo had not produced the necessary documents required for the issue of a residence permit within three months, the Belgian authorities argued that they were entitled to deport her. The European Commission took the view that this approach is not in line with EC law.
The ECJ ruled that it does not matter what is the source of the financial resources for an economically non-active person. This can also be a person who is not a family member in the legal sense. To require a legal link would be disproportionate in that it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the purpose of the relevant Directive, namely to protect the public finances of the Member States. Automatic expulsion if a certain type of proof for the existence of the financial resources is not brought is also disproportionate.
Text of the ECJ judgment
Text of the AG opinion