Volume 42 (2015) / Issue 3
Since the Treaty of Maastricht free movement rights for Union citizens have been continuously strengthened in a process which has gradually encroached upon the dominance of the ‘market citizenship’ paradigm. The Martens judgment takes a small, yet significant, step further along this path. Faced with the choice between the worker and citizenship provisions, the Court chose to give further substance to the prohibition of restrictions contained in the latter. Moreover, it is argued that the application of the justification test – which was shed of the usual ‘unreasonable burden’ vocabulary – is in the slipstream of a broader tendency towards convergence between economically active and inactive benefit claimants, particularly in the field of student support. Finally, the case offers yet another chance to revisit the question which has perennially plagued the field: How should financial responsibility for mobile students be distributed? Given the absence of coordination rules, the contribution considers how to approach an answer within the general free movement framework.
All rights reserved