This article discusses the trend of introducing increasingly strict obligations and sanctions for social security claimants in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. It is argued that this trend should be judged critically because it upsets the balance between rights and obligations for benefit claimants and may undermine the ‘elevating function’ of social security. Courts play an important role in maintaining the balance between rights and obligations. The article discusses recent case law in the three countries and also refers to a remarkable case at the Czech Constitutional Court of November 2012, which paves the way for a more fundamental approach to scrutinising repressive welfare state excesses.
CarneyT. (2008) ‘Australian Social Welfare-to-Work: Avoiding Freudian slips?’Journal of Social Security Law, 15(2), 51–75.
3.
ChunnD.E. and CaviganS.E.M. (2006) ‘From welfare fraud to welfare as fraud, the criminalization of poverty’, in BalfourG. and ComackE. (eds.) Criminalizing Women: Gender and (In)justice in Neo-liberal Times, Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
4.
CorraA. (2012) ‘De maatschappelijk nuttige tegenprestatie: De magische grens tussen sociale re-integratie en repressie’ in VonkG.J. and TollenaarA. (eds.), Lokale verzorgingsstaat, nieuwe uitdagingen voor de sociale rechtsstaat, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
5.
DwyerP. (2004) ‘Creeping Conditionality in the UK: From Welfare Rights to Conditional Entitlements?’Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(2): 265–287.
6.
GustaafsonK.S. (2012) Cheating Welfare, Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty, New York, NY: NYU Press.
7.
KreikebohmR. and van KochF. (2012) ‘Das Sozialleistungsverhältnis – generelle Rechte und Plichten zwischen Sozialleistungsempfängern und -Trägern’ in: Sozialrechtshandbuch, Von MaydelRulandBecker (Hrsg.), Nomos, 251–662.
8.
LarkinP.M. (2007) ‘The “Criminalization” of Social Security Law; Towards a Punitative Welfare State, Journal of Law and Society, 34(3), 295–320.
9.
McKeeverG. (2009) ‘Balancing Rights and Responsibilities: The case of social security fraud’, Journal of Social Security Law, 17(2), 71–99.
10.
NoordamF. (2003) ‘Hoe fraude en handhaving Nederland en de Sociale Verzekeringsbank veranderden, Sociaal Maandblad Arbeid, 16–29.
11.
Reindl-KrauskopfS. and MeissnitzerM. (2013) ‘Types of social security fraud, a legal analysis’Bulletin luxembourgois des questions sociales, vol. 30.
12.
TollenaarA. (2013) ‘Aanscherping sanctiebeleid SZW-Wetten: Vliegt de wetgever uit de bocht?’, Beleid en Maatschappij, (40) 2, 118–131.
13.
TrommelW.Gulzig bestuur (oratie VU Amsterdam), Den Haag, Lemma2009
14.
den UijlM.D.TollenaarA.BröringH.E.KwakmanN.J.M. and KeulenR.F. (2012) ‘Boetes in het strafrecht en het bestuursrecht: De rationaliteit van boetehoogte’, Tijdschrift voor Sanctierecht en Compliance voor Ondernemingen, nr. 6.
15.
van AerschotP. (2011) ‘Administrative Justice and the implementation of activation legislation in Denmark, Finland and Sweden’, Journal of Social Security Law, 18(1), 33–57.
16.
van OorschotW. (2006) ‘Making the Difference in Social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23–42.
17.
van OorschotW. and RoosmaF. (2013) ‘Perceptions of mis-targeting among citizens of European welfare states, Bulletin luxembourgois des questions sociales, 30.
18.
van StolkC. and ElmerstigH. (2013) ‘The economic cost of social security fraud’Bulletin luxembourgois des questions sociales, 30.
19.
VonkG.J. (2011) ‘Kroniek jurisprudentie werknemersverzekeringen en bijstand 2011’, Tijdschrift Recht en Arbeid, 1, 20–25.
