|Opis:||Over the past few decades, the focus on the problem of free movement has shifted from workers to EU citizenship. Since the introduction of this paradigm, having a status of a worker is no longer the only way to enable EU citizens to access social benefits in the host Member State. Since the enforcement of EU citizenship, freedom of movement and residence in another Member State has also been made available to economically inactive persons, and thus also to jobseekers.
Therefore, this paper deals primarily with the right to freedom of movement and residence in the host Member State within the legal framework of access to the social benefits for jobseekers in the host Member State and then the rules on access to social benefits under secondary legislation respectively Directive 2004/38, but the case-law of the Court of Justice has also played an important role in the definition of loose concepts.
In this regard, this paper analyzes the case-law of the EU Court of Justice in this field, which shows that the EU Court of Justice has until recently extended the general and vague concepts of the provisions on access to social benefits based on the reference to EU citizenship, which it defined as the "fundamental status" and on the basis of the principle of equal treatment showed a degree of sympathy for the granting of social benefits also to economically inactive citizens.
However, the EU Court moved away from this practice and decided to take more restrictive measures on the basis of the complaints from Member States on the phenomenon of social tourism and showed sympathy for the "model of integration" or a genuine link with the host Member State, which became clear with the decision in the Dano case. The Court continued this practice in the recent cases of Alimanović and Garcia-Nieto. Both cases have been analyzed in detail as they relate to the category of jobseekers. In the Alimanović case, the EU Court further clarified the position of jobseekers who had previously been employed in the host Member State and became involuntarily unemployed, and in the Garcia-Nieto case, the position of first-time jobseekers during the first three months of residence in the host Member State.
In line with the analysis of the aforementioned cases, I point out, in particular, the turning point in the Court's decision on access to social advantages, which began to use a more literal approach to the rules in Directive 2004/38, even though it automatically excludes a significant number of EU citizens from access to social benefits.
I believe that this restrictive approach of the Court in recent case law shows a very limited vision of social solidarity and that in the future, if the Court continues to apply this case-law, only workers and wealthy EU migrants, who do not need social assistance, will enjoy the "fundamental status" of EU citizenship and the rights attached to it.|