Citizenship income: residence requirement constitutes indirect discrimination

The requirement of ten years' residence in Italy to access 'citizenship income' is discriminatory, albeit indirectly, against beneficiaries of international protection. This was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in ruling C-747/22 against the National Social Security Institute (INPS). KH, a beneficiary of subsidiary protection residing in Italy since 2011, had applied for and obtained the benefit. A necessary condition to obtain the benefit is residence for at least ten years on Italia soil, the last two of which on a continuous basis. Having ascertained that the requirement was not met, the Inps had thus interrupted the payments and requested the reimbursement of the amount received.

According to the appellant, who challenged the decision before the Bergamo District Court, the residence precondition constitutes indirect discrimination: it is more easily satisfied by Italian citizens. In fact, the referring court points out that, in the period between 2010 and 2020, only 0.48 per cent of Italian citizens did not reside in Italy as opposed to 56 per cent among those benefiting from international protection. According to Inps, however, the measure is not intended to cover a primary need, but is part of employment and integration policies: this is why requiring a link with Italia territory would have been allowed.

Questioned by the Bergamo court, the Court of Justice of the European Union notes first of all that the 'citizenship income' is a measure subject to the principle of equality between beneficiaries of international protection and citizens: it is, in fact, both a measure of access to employment and an essential social benefit provided in the form of a minimum income. EU law, for both grants, recognises that beneficiaries of international protection are treated equally to nationals. Member States are therefore prohibited from imposing additional requirements or limitations, such as ten years of residence, for their entitlement.

Moreover, as argued by the appellant and reasoned by the Bergamo Court, the residence requirement - despite its symmetrical application to Italian citizens and beneficiaries of international protection - affects mainly foreign persons and thus constitutes indirect discrimination. Tying the possibility of receiving a subsidy with a long stay in Italia conflicts with the objective pursued by the Union, that is, to guarantee a minimum level of benefits. A requirement irreconcilable with the non-permanent status of beneficiaries of international protection. Lastly, the government's argument that granting the 'citizenship income' entails an administrative and economic burden by virtue of which it can justify the exclusion of those who have not resided in Italy for ten years is worthless. According to the Court, in fact, granting a social benefit has the same costs regardless of whether the recipient is a citizen or a beneficiary of international protection. In any case, the Court states, the Italian Republic has never clearly expressed its intention to avail itself of the derogation to the principle of equal treatment.