Key Facts
- •Michaela Simkova (MS), a Slovakian national residing in England, applied for Universal Credit (UC) in 2017, including a child element for her son residing in Slovakia.
- •The Secretary of State initially awarded the child element but later revised the decision, removing entitlement.
- •The dispute centers on whether the child element of UC can be separated (severed) from the overall benefit and treated as a 'family benefit' under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, allowing for its export to Slovakia.
- •The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favor of MS, but the Upper Tribunal (UT) reversed the decision.
Legal Principles
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems aims at coordination, not harmonization of national systems.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Recitals 3 and 4; Case C-503/09 Stewart v SSWP
To be a social security benefit under Regulation 883/2004, a benefit must not be social assistance and must be granted without individual needs assessment, based on a legally defined position, covering risks listed in Article 3.
Case C-406/04 De Cuyper v ONEM; Regulation 883/2004, Article 3
Generalized, blended benefit schemes like UC may fall outside the scope of Regulation 883/2004.
Case 122/84 Vera Hoeckx v Centre Public D’aide Sociale de Kalmthout
There is no doctrine of severance in EU case law allowing for the disaggregation of components from a single, composite benefit to create discrete entitlements.
Analysis of Case C-299/05 Commission v European Parliament and Council; Case C-537/09 Bartlett, Gonzalez Ramos and Taylor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Case C-709/20 CG v Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found no basis in Regulation 883/2004 or EU case law to support the severance of the child element from UC. Such a doctrine would be inconsistent with the coordination, not harmonization, principle of the regulation and would significantly impact the UK's social security system.