The European Court of Justice rejects the 10-year residency requirement for access to minimum income in Italy
Always see our news on Google
The EU judges say that beneficiaries of international protection must be treated equally with Italian citizens when requesting basic social benefits and professional integration measures, and the residency requirement imposed by Italy mainly affects individuals without Italian citizenship.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Italy cannot condition access for beneficiaries of international protection to the "citizenship income" on a minimum residency of 10 years, as this requirement constitutes indirect discrimination prohibited by EU law.
In short
The Court of Justice has decided that a 10-year residency requirement for access to the "citizenship income" in Italy indirectly discriminates against beneficiaries of international protection.
The case concerns a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, legally residing in Italy since 2011, whose social benefit was withdrawn by INPS after an administrative check.
The Court established that the "citizenship income" is both a measure of access to work and a basic social benefit in the form of a minimum income.
The EU judges considered that the requirement formally applies to everyone but mainly affects individuals who are not Italian citizens.
The Court rejected the argument that administrative and financial costs could justify this difference in treatment.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that a 10-year residency requirement imposed by Italian legislation for access to the "citizenship income" constitutes indirect discrimination against beneficiaries of international protection.
The ruling was pronounced in case C-747/22, in a dispute arising from the case of a beneficiary of subsidiary protection who had been legally residing in Italy since 2011 and was receiving the "citizenship income," a social benefit related to professional and social integration measures.
The granting of this benefit was conditioned on residency in Italy for at least 10 years, of which the last two years had to be continuous.
After an administrative check, the National Institute of Social Security, INPS, found that the individual did not meet this requirement. The institution stopped the payment of the benefit and requested the return of amounts considered unduly paid.
The beneficiary contested the decision before an Italian court, arguing that the requirement of 10 years of residency is indirectly discriminatory, as it is easier for Italian citizens to meet than for foreign citizens.
INPS argued that the income in question does not aim to cover a primary need but falls within the realm of employment and integration policy, which would justify the requirement of a real connection to Italy.
The Italian court considered that this condition could be discriminatory and disproportionate and requested the Court of Justice to determine whether it is compatible with EU law.
The Court first decided that the "citizenship income" has a dual nature. It is a measure of access to the labor market, subject to the principle of equal treatment between beneficiaries of international protection and citizens of the member state, and a basic social benefit in the form of a minimum income.
This qualification is important because EU law guarantees beneficiaries of international protection equal treatment with citizens of the member state in terms of access to employment measures and basic social benefits.
The Court found that the 10-year residency requirement is applied in the same way to Italian citizens and beneficiaries of international protection. However, in practice, it mainly affects individuals who are not Italian citizens.
The judges established that this difference in treatment constitutes indirect discrimination, which is generally prohibited by EU law.
The Court also analyzed the justification presented by the Italian government, according to which the "citizenship income" involves significant administrative and financial costs, which would allow limiting the benefit to individuals well integrated into the national community.
The EU judges rejected this argument. The Court pointed out that granting a social benefit generates the same costs for the competent institution regardless of whether the beneficiary is a citizen of the member state or a beneficiary of international protection.
The Court also specified that, regarding access to employment measures and basic social benefits, EU law grants beneficiaries of international protection a right to equal treatment and does not allow member states to introduce other conditions or limitations beyond those provided for by European legislation.
The judges emphasized that the duration of residence in the territory of a member state is not provided by EU law as a criterion for granting these benefits to beneficiaries of international protection.
The Court also considered that imposing a 10-year residency requirement contradicts the objective of EU law to ensure a minimum level of benefits for beneficiaries of international protection.
The status of these individuals is not, by its nature, permanent and can be revoked, which may lead, in certain cases, to the return of the individual to their country of origin. In this context, such a long residency requirement would limit access to benefits designed to cover basic needs and for integration.
The ruling does not directly resolve the national dispute. In the context of a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice interprets EU law, and the national court must resolve the case according to this interpretation.
The Court's decision is also binding for other national courts that would judge similar issues regarding access for beneficiaries of international protection to basic social benefits or professional integration measures.
The case falls under the application of Directive 2011/95/EU, which establishes the standards for qualifying citizens from third countries or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and defines the content of the protection granted.
EU law provides that beneficiaries of international protection must receive equal treatment with citizens of the member state regarding access to employment measures and certain basic social benefits.
In this case, the Court interpreted Article 26 of the directive, concerning access to the labor market, and Article 29, regarding social benefits. The Italian "citizenship income" was considered relevant for both areas, as it combines a minimum income with the obligation to participate in a program of occupational and social integration.
The ruling clarifies the limits within which member states can condition access to social benefits for beneficiaries of international protection. States can organize their own social protection systems but cannot introduce conditions that disproportionately affect foreigners protected by EU law and that are not provided for by the European framework.
The decision has broader relevance for national social support and integration policies, especially when benefits are linked to both minimum income and participation in labor market measures.
Latest News
20:46
20:25
20:04
19:39
19:14
See more news
