Supported Case Law - EC Case Law C-408/03 has the aim to demonstrate that although Self-Sufficient Nationals need to prove that they have the necessary resources to avoid becoming a burden on social assistance system of that state during the period of residence; The Court observed that, under the very terms of the Directive, it is sufficient for the nationals of Member States to “have” the necessary resources and that this provision lays down no requirement whatsoever as to their “origin”. (para 40) and that the necessary financial resources can be provided by a family member and that the family member could be a citizen of the host Member State (para 42, 51).
March 2006
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/a ... 408_en.pdf
C-408/03 Commission v Belgium, supported by the United Kingdom, judgment of 23rd March 2006 - Right of residence for Union citizens – Sufficient resources – Orders to leave the territory
“The Commission brought an action against Belgium for failure to fulfil its obligations regarding Community rules on the right of residence. A Portuguese national had joined her long standing partner in Belgium, with her three daughters. An order to leave Belgian territory was served on her on the ground that the undertaking to support her given by her partner did not constitute evidence that she had sufficient resources. The Court held that Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations. The Commission first submitted that there is no requirement that a citizen of the Union must have sufficient personal resources.
Its second plea challenged the automatic nature of the order to leave the territory served on citizens of the Union who have not produced the documents required for the issue of a residence permit within the time specified. The Court’s preliminary observation is that the right to reside within the territory of the Member States under “Article 18”(1) EC is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by “Article 18” itself or by the appropriate rules1 to give it effect, in this case “Directive 90/364” on the right of residence2 . That Directive requires nationals who wish to enjoy a right of residence on the territory of another Member State to be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and to have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of that State during their period of residence. National measures adopted to ensure that this condition is met must be necessary and appropriate to attain the objective pursued.
The Court observed that, under the very terms of the Directive, it is sufficient for the nationals of Member States to “have” the necessary resources and that this provision lays down no requirement whatsoever as to their origin. The correctness of that interpretation is reinforced by the fact that provisions laying down a fundamental freedom must be interpreted broadly. In particular, the Court rejected the demand for a legal link between persons as contrary to the proportionality principle since it is not necessary for the attainment of the objective pursued, namely the protection of the public finances of the host Member States. The loss of sufficient resources is always an underlying risk, and the source of those resources thus has no automatic effect on the risk of such a loss arising, as the materialisation of such a risk is the result of a change of circumstances.”
