Euroopa Liidu Kohus
01.03.2016
Facts
The applicants Mr Alo and Ms Osso, Syrian nationals, were granted subsidiary protection status in Germany. Their residence permits included a condition requiring them to take up residence in specific locations in Germany – in Mr Alo’s case, in the town of Ahlen and, in Ms Osso’s case, in Hanover Region. The applicants objected to the residence conditions imposed on them.
Questions referred to the CJEU by the national courts
- Does the condition requiring residence to be taken up in a geographically limited area of a Member State constitute a restriction of freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU?
- Is this condition compatible with Directive 2011/95, if it is based on the objective to achieve an appropriate distribution of social assistance burdens within the territory of the State?
- Is this condition compatible with Directive 2011/95, if it is based on grounds of migration or integration policy, for example, to prevent points of social tension as a result of the accumulated settlement of foreign nationals in certain regions?
Court’s ruling
The Court first clarified that Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States to allow beneficiaries of international protection both to move freely within the territory of the Member State and to choose their place of residence within that territory. Accordingly, a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement.
Secondly, the Court found that the relevant articles of Directive 2011/95/EU preclude the imposition of a residence condition on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection for the purpose of achieving an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying social security benefits among various institutions.
Thirdly, the Court specified that Article 29 of the Directive 2011/95/EU is not relevant when assessing whether residence conditions can be imposed upon subsidiary protection status holders where the objective is to facilitate the integration of third-country nationals. This is because subsidiary protection beneficiaries are not in a comparable situation as German nationals where the objective is to facilitate the integration of third-country nationals. However, the Court found that it is up to the national court to assess whether a beneficiary of international protection will face greater difficulties with integration compared to other third-country nationals legally resident in Germany.