EU Law Flashcards
Cases and Points of Law.
A “worker” is defined as…
someone who during a period of time performs services under the direction of another for remuneration.
The case that defined what a worker was…
Lawrie-Blum (1986)
Finish the sentence.
Remuneration doesn’t…
… have to be money. (IE accommodation)
The case that states remuneration doesn’t have to be money is the case of
Steymann (1986)
TRUE OR FALSE:
Remuneration needs to be enough to live on without social benefits from the member state.
FALSE as per Kempf (1986).
What case states that remuneration doesn’t need to be enough to live on without social benefit from the member state.
Kempf (1986)
Is part-time work included in the definition of a worker?
Yes. As per Levin (1982).
What case states that part time work is included in the definition of a worker?
Levin (1982)
The case of Hoekstra (1964) states what?
That someone who has recently lost their job and is looking for another job must be given a reasonable amount of time.
What case states that someone who has recently lost their job must be given a reasonable amount of time before being kicked out of the member state?
Hoekstra (1964)
Which Article relates to securing free movement for workers in the EU?
Article 45(1)
Article 45(2) is about what?
Ensuring that member states don’t discriminate against foreign workers, just like in the case of Collins v SoS (2004)
What case states that member states must not discriminate against foreign workers? Furthermore stating that foreign nationals must enjoy the same rights as those citizens that live in the host nation?
Collins v SoS (2004)
Article 45(3) is about what?
Includes rights of EU citizens such as the right of employment.
Explain the duration in which EU nationals can reside in another country?
< 3 months without any documents besides a valid identity card or passport
> 3 if there’s a realistic job prospect/ employment has been successful.
(Authority: Directive 2004/38)
What is the relevant case law that shows us what a ‘reasonable amount of time’ is?
Antinossen (1991).
After 5 years of residence in another member state, what right can you acquire according to the Citizenship Directive?
Permanent residence.
The case of Duyn v Home Office (1994) showed that a MS can decide who to let into the country based on culture. What is now the criteria?
You need to be a “direct and immediate threat” to not be allowed into the country.
The criteria of “direct and immediate threat” comes from…
Citizenship Directive 2004/38
Ozil, a German national, stole a jacket 10 years ago. The UK deemed this conviction enough to not allow Ozil into the country. This is legal and perfectly sound.
Explain with authority that this is true/false
False. The case of R v Bouchereau (1977) shows us that (1) Seriousness of crime; and (2) Length of time passed since conviction must be considered.
IE, a recent murder conviction is enough but a 10 year petty theft crime wouldn’t be.
The case of R v Bouchereau (1977) shows what?
(1) Seriousness of crime; and (2) Length of time passed since conviction must be considered before dismissing an EU citizen’s request to reside/visit a Member State.
What is the criteria for denying an EU citizen access to a Member State regarding public health?
Needs to be contagious and an epidemic. IE Swine flu would have been enough at a point but a cold wouldn’t.
Jim unfortunately suffers from HIV. Because of this, the Netherlands have rejected his request to work in the country. Is this legal?
No.
During the initial 3 months of residence where an EU citizen does not need any requirements (other than valid identity card), can they receive social assistance?
No, as per Article 24(2) Citizenship Directive 2004/38
Virgil moves from the Netherlands to Britain. He becomes a burden on the social assistance system after 7 months of residence. What happens?
Under Article 14(1) Citizenship Directive 2004/38, Virgil loses his right of residence in the United Kingdom.
Jim moved to Spain 1 year ago and then lost his job through a bad car accident. Does he lose his right to reside in Spain?
No, as per Article 7(3).
When can students and self funding migrants reside in another EU country?
Only when they have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the state.
Case of Baumbast (2002) shows what?
That if the ‘worker’ goes to another country whilst the family remain in the MS, they have a right of residence AS LONG AS there’s no burden on the social assistance system.
Are EU nationals guaranteed work in another Member State’s public service?
No, as per Article 45(4) and Commission v Belgium [1982]
Commission v Belgium [1982] shows what?
EU nationals aren’t guaranteed work in another Member State’s public service.
Commission v Italy (1987) shows what?
Only management and advising state on matters on scientific questions is considered public service.
Commission v Luxemburg (1996) shows what?
Whilst there is a need to protect the national identity of a small country, it is disproportionate to not allow another EU national to teach in that country for this reason.
The cases of Commission v Italy (1987) and Commission v Luxemburg (1996) show what?
That the boundaries of “public service” are unclear in EU law.
What does the case of R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal (1991) show?
That freedom of movement for workers applies to those seeking work too.
What authority says that there can’t be any direct obstacles for foreign workers or laws that aim to keep away other nationals?
Workers Rights: Regulation 492/2011
What authority says that there can be no nationality quotas?
Workers Rights: Regulation 492/2011
What authority says that there can be no special recruitment for foreign nationals?
Workers Rights: Regulation 492/2011
What does the case of Crisini (1975) show?
That EU workers and their families should be granted the same tax and social advantages as those from the host nation.
What does Article 20 TFEU establish?
Establishes Citizenship of the Union (EU citizenship).
What does Article 21 TFEU establish?
The freedom of movement for EU citizens.
