In this contribution the added value of the Charter in the area of social security is examined. It is concluded that Article 34 of the Charter has not created fundamental rights that can be invoked in order to improve the legal position of claimants of social security or of social assistance. This conclusion is no surprise, given the express provisions limiting the interpretation of the Charter. Instead, it is interesting to note that the Charter has, in particular, added value where the scope for interpretation has not been explicitly limited, that is where provisions are applied that are not implemented by the instrument that is disputed in a particular situation. A second added value is the doctrine of horizontal effect, which means that in some cases provisions of Directives can also be invoked in horizontal situations. This is of relevance, particularly in non-statutory social security cases. Also, the Court of Justice itself seems to have had its difficulties in applying the Charter. It is difficult to understand the consistency of the Dano and CG judgments, where in the Dano the Court claimed not to have jurisdiction to interpret the non-specific provisions in the case, yet in CG, it did so without having even been asked. In this contribution it is undertaken to analyse these judgments with a view to better understanding the added value of the Charter.

在这篇文章中，我们研究了宪章在社会保障领域的附加价值。得出的结论是，《宪章》第 34 条没有规定可以援引的基本权利，以提高社会保障或社会救助索赔人的法律地位。鉴于限制对《宪章》解释的明确规定，这一结论并不令人意外。相反，有趣的是，在解释范围没有明确限制的情况下，宪章特别具有附加价值，即适用于在特定情况下有争议的文书未实施的规定。第二个附加值是横向效应原则，这意味着在某些情况下，指令的规定也可以在横向情况下被援引。这是相关的，特别是在非法定社会保障案件中。此外，法院本身在适用《宪章》方面似乎也遇到了困难。很难理解的一致性Dano和CG判决，在Dano中，法院声称没有管辖权来解释案件中的非特定条款，但在CG 中，它甚至没有被询问就这样做了。在这篇文章中，我们对这些判断进行了分析，以便更好地理解宪章的附加价值。