In KH v INPS (Case C-747/22), the Court of Justice of the European Union reaffirmed that the requirement of ten years’ residence in Italy for access to the “citizen income” (reddito di cittadinanza) could not be applied to beneficiaries of international protection. The case originated from the withdrawal of the benefit from a third-country national holding subsidiary protection status who did not meet the ten-year residence requirement.

The question referred to the Court concerned the compatibility of the Italian legislation with Articles 26 and 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU (Qualification directive), which require Member States to ensure equal treatment between beneficiaries of international protection and their own nationals with regard to access to employment and social assistance.

According to the applicant, the ten-year residence requirement amounted to indirect discrimination on the ground of nationality. Although formally applicable to all applicants, the condition was particularly burdensome for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, who, by definition, had generally resided in the host State for a shorter period than most national citizens.

The Italian government argued that the “citizens income” did not fall within the scope of the Directive, as it constituted a complex measure combining income support, social inclusion, and active labour market policies. It further justified the residence requirement on the grounds of ensuring beneficiaries’ territorial integration and limiting the financial burden associated with the measure.

The Court rejected these arguments. While acknowledging the composite nature of the “citizens income”, it observed that the measure pursues both employment-related objectives, falling within Article 26 of the directive, and poverty-reduction objectives, falling within Article 29. Therefore, the existence of multiple objectives does not allow Member States to circumvent the equal-treatment obligations established under EU law.

In assessing the impact of the ten-year residence requirement, the Court found that it disproportionately affected beneficiaries of international protection, thereby constituting indirect discrimination. Furthermore, it held that such unequal treatment could not be justified either by considerations of territorial integration or by financial concerns. The rights guaranteed under Directive 2011/95 derive from the status of international protection itself and not from the duration of residence in the host State.

The judgment therefore confirmed that Articles 26 and 29 of Directive 2011/95 preclude national legislation that makes access to a social assistance and employment-support measure, such as the “citizens income”, conditional upon a ten-year residence requirement for beneficiaries of international protection.

Even though the “citizen income” measure is no longer operative, the decision still represents an important step in the protection of the social rights of beneficiaries of international protection, confirming that access to social assistance measures, including the complex ones, as was the “citizen income”, cannot be made contingent upon requirements that, although formally neutral, produce discriminatory effects in practice. The ruling thus reinforces the principle of equal treatment for beneficiaries of international protection in access to social rights.