[ad_1]
Experts are still worried about whether the new regulations are constitutionally leak-proof, even if only slightly, given the decision on the new guaranteed minimum income. It is now important to wait for the exact wording of the legal text, said former Constitutional Judge Rudolf Müller. EU lawyer Walter Obwexer believes that the new provisions are compatible with EU law.
The government on Wednesday clarified the important points of European legislation with their punctuation, said Obwexer after a first review of the text. Thus, the project to remove asylum seekers in case of ignorance of the German is 35% of the minimum income and to use the 300 euros released for a professional qualification (course of. German), in principle compatible with the law of the Union. Because if the people involved attended the courses, they would soon be able to meet the requirements and would be entitled to 100% benefits, according to Obwexer. In this sense, they do not lose 35%.
If the remaining 65% (€ 561) is enough for a decent life, the law of the Union provides for it. Here, we will also discuss how the law is formulated in terms of difficulties.
Waiting time of five years in the order
The question of German language proficiency by EU citizens could be crucial. The project stipulates that applicants who prove that they have obtained a compulsory Austrian teaching certificate are entitled to a full reference. According to the European Union legislation, it would be useful to determine if a certificate of completion of compulsory studies issued by another country of the European Union (with the corresponding teaching in German) would not be equivalent to the Austrian diploma.
Obwexer does not share the concerns of other lawyers regarding the "indirect discrimination" of asylum seekers because of the requirement of knowledge of German. "In Austria, to succeed in the job market, I need the German language." It is true that, according to the Community law in force, indirect discrimination is prohibited in principle. However, such discrimination could be justified "for important reasons", provided that "the measure is proportionate". This "important reason" is the ability to work in the Austrian labor market, which justifies discrimination. There is "no doubt" that this regulation falls under EU law, according to Obwexer.
Obwexer no longer considers that the five-year waiting period granted to EU and EEA citizens for minimum income protection is essential. As it now applies only in principle, but with the exception of workers or workers.
Self-employed workers who earn too little and therefore have the right to "increase". The majority of the minimum income is called "Aufstocker". In addition, a case-by-case examination for difficult cases is provided.
Reduction as "non-objective" sanction
Constitutionalist Theo Öhlinger expressed himself with greater skepticism. The automatic reduction of minimum income protection for people who do not have sufficient knowledge of German, for example, is crucial, he said. Because the provision is "inconsistent" with the basic idea of the minimum income, namely to allow a decent life. "If the state is willing to guarantee a minimum of financial resources to all people living in this country, it has nothing to do with the quality or fluency of German."
Although it can imagine penalties for those who do not wish to learn German, this does not mean however a reduction in the minimum income. He considers that this requirement is "non-objective". Ohlinger believes that the five year waiting period for third country nationals and EU and EEA citizens does not pose a problem from a constitutional point of view.
The language certificate for Austrians is a question mark
The Salzburg University professor and former SPÖ-related constitutional judge, Rudolf Müller, wants to wait for a final evaluation, submission of the legal text, scheduled for the end of the week. To avoid any problem, he considers the degressive design of the minimum income for children. Although the amount of the cash benefit is very low, but: "The coverage is not a (…) because the government should be careful".
But even in the case of heavy financial losses for families, contrary to the previous regulation, Müller does not see any constitutional problems, because we can mitigate the rule for cases of deprivation of sentence: To draw a fang ", he also wants wait here for the text of the law.
The only "big question mark" for Müller is the language certificate for the Austrians, which should also be possible by hearing before the authority (in addition to the presentation of an Austrian certificate of Compulsory school). It's the question of how this hearing should be designed: "Who controls the official and how?" Here, the wording in punctuation leaves too much room for maneuver: "This could be a constitutional problem because it does not sufficiently determine the execution." But that too is a question of legal wording.
(APA / red).
Source link
