C-544/18, Dakneviciute

Key Points to Note in This Case:

• Context: This case relates to Article 45 TFEU (Free Movement of Persons) and the right to social benefits for self-employed individuals.

• Facts: A Lithuanian woman moved to the UK to work as a self-employed beauty therapist. After becoming pregnant, she sought to claim child benefit.

Outcome:

◦ The UK courts initially refused her claim, arguing that since she had interrupted her economic activity, she did not fall under the right to child benefit.

◦ The CJEU challenged this decision and ruled that she is protected under EU law despite the interruption in her economic activity, provided she returns to the same or another economic activity within a reasonable time.

Key Legal Points:

◦ Protection During Interruption: The CJEU’s ruling emphasised that pregnancy and subsequent interruption of work should not lead to the loss of EU rights. The right to social benefits should continue, reflecting a progressive stance towards gender equality.

◦ Requirement to Resume Activity: The requirement to return to economic activity within a "reasonable time" introduces uncertainty. This condition places pressure on pregnant women, as the exact duration deemed "reasonable" is not clearly defined.

◦ Potential Risks: Women may face risks such as losing child benefits or even the right to residence if they do not resume work within the undefined reasonable time, highlighting the precarious nature of the protections offered.