Paper Titles & Abstracts

According to settled ECJ case law, EU citizenship implies 'a certain degree of financial solidarity' between nationals of the Member States. Crucially, Member States may not reserve access to social benefits to their own nationals. They must extend eligibility to nationals from other Member States, and to their family members. The recent economic crisis has made these solidarity mechanisms ever more controversial. EU citizens from other Member States, in particular non-economically active ones, are increasingly seen as 'free riders' or 'welfare tourists' who endanger the national welfare system. In order to stem the inflow of these 'free riders', a Member State can have recourse to two basic mechanisms. On the one hand, a Member State can make it more difficult to acquire its nationality and hence EU citizenship. On the other hand, a Member State can restrict access for non-economically active EU citizens to certain social advantages, in implementation of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. These possibilities are perfectly illustrated by two recent changes in Belgian nationality and immigration legislation.My paper analyses the Belgian legislative changes against the broader context of the economic crisis and argues that they are part of a broader development taking places in various EU Member States. The argument is that this is a dangerous development, because it undermines the added value of EU citizenship and the ideal of solidarity underlying it. The paper argues that the way forward is in the better articulation, explanation and enforcement of the EU citizenship provisions and their scope of application and of the principle of solidarity. The responsibility for this development lies largely with the ECJ, but partially also with the other EU institutions, in particular the Commission, and with national administrations.