EU rights and policies

This subtopic concerns matters relating to EU social and economic rights and policies, including the four freedoms underpinning the EU Internal Market:

•
free movement of goods
•
freedom of establishment and to provide services
•
free movement of capital
•
free movement of persons

Freedom of establishment and to provide services are closely related and can be regarded as, in effect, one ‘freedom’.

Social rights

Most social and employment legislation in the EU is the responsibility of individual Member States, but certain aspects of employment and social protection are affected by EU legislation. There would be no economic and social cohesion without a legal framework to ensure fair treatment for all citizens, and to ensure that businesses are not incentivised to move to areas where labour is cheaper. However, social policy is closely linked to the political ethos of national governments, so increasing competence at the EU level creates tension with Member States.

Although social policy is a shared competence, this competence has been increasingly exercised by EU institutions while stopping short of harmonising laws across the EU. Embedded into the aims of the EU,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Public Law weekly highlights—20 November 2025

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of Public Law. These highlights include the latest updates on Brexit, constitutional and administrative law, equality and human rights, judicial review, public procurement, information law, state accountability and liability, state security and intelligence and other Public Law news. This edition features analysis of two recent Supreme Court cases, plus details of free webinars available in conjunction with the LexisNexis® University.

Supreme Court allows Secretary of State’s appeal in Article 14 challenge to BSP contribution condition—R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal in R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to bereavement support payment (BSP). The respondent, whose late wife had not worked (and thus had not paid national insurance contributions) due to her disability, had challenged the contribution condition for BSP under Article 14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The respondent’s claim had succeeded before the High Court and Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which applied a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (NICA) decision on similar issues. Allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal, the Supreme Court noted that while rulings of the appellate courts in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should be considered persuasive in similar legal matters arising in other UK jurisdictions, the weight given to those rulings will depend on various factors. In this case, the Supreme Court considered there were good reasons for departing from the NICA decision. On the question of unlawful discrimination, the Supreme Court found the BSP contribution condition to be justified in pursuit of legitimate aims, striking a fair balance between the rights of individuals impacted and the interests of the community as a whole. Lord Reed and Lady Simler gave a joint judgment, with which the other members of the Court agreed.

Supreme Court holds that statutory religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland school breached human rights (In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review (Appellant))

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal brought by a young girl, JR87, and her father, against the Department of Education (Northern Ireland). The court, sitting in London, has held that the teaching of religious education and the provision of collective worship in Northern Ireland’s controlled schools, as mandated under the existing statutory framework, breached their rights under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (A2P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) read together with Article 9 ECHR. Victoria Dennis, Educational Law Solicitor, Doyle Clayton has commented on the implications of the judgment.

Supreme Court holds child element of Universal Credit is not a family benefit under EU coordination rules (Simkova v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by a Slovakian national resident in England, concerning entitlement to the child element of Universal Credit in circumstances where the claimant’s child resided outside the United Kingdom. The Court held that the child element of universal credit (‘UC’) is not a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. Sarah Crowe, solicitor at Leigh Day representing the appellant, discusses the implications of the judgment, highlighting that the decision confirms that EU nationals living in the UK whose children remain in an EU Member State cannot claim the child element of Universal Credit for those children, even if they are dependent on them, and that questions about the Supreme Court’s power to refer to the CJEU under the Withdrawal Agreement will need to be resolved in a future case.