Free Movement of Persons Flashcards
Art 45 TFEU
Centrality of the non-discrimination principle: application to the specific context of workers, of the general principle in Art 18 TFEU (prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality)
Walgrave and Koch
Art 45 even applies to work done outside of EU as long as legal relationship was entered into within EU
Walgrave and Koch || Bosman
Art 45 effective vertically and horizontally
Angnonese
Art 45 also effective against individual employers who refuse to appoint someone on grounds of nationality
Requirement for a certificate of bilingualism for a post at a bank CONTRARY to Art 45
(referring to Defrenne: ambitious language doesn’t stop Treaty provision from having direct effect, if the principle is CLEAR)
Art 46 TFEU
Freedoms set out in Art 45 have to be secured in MS secondary legislation
2 most important pieces of secondary legislation (applying 45 under 46)
1) “Citizens’ rights directive”: Directive 2004/38 (introduced right of permanent residence)
2) Regulation 492/2011 (fleshing out basic equal treatment principle and substantive rights/benefits enjoyed by workers)
Regulation 492/2011
Definition of a worker - an EU concept
Regulation 492/2011 restricts application of 45 to EU workers who are NATIONALS
Hoekstra
CJEU has hermeneutic monopoly on what constitutes a worker: “genuine and effective employment, more than marginal and ancillary”
Jany
Prostitutes = self-employed (under Art 49), up to MS to determined if it is actually legal employment
“Principle of free movement”
CREATION OF FREE MARKET - economic aspects (renumeration) vs. ABILITY OF NATIONALS TO IMPROVE LIFE - social aspects (quality of life)
Levin
Levin didn’t have sufficient means of support equal to minimum legal wage in the Netherlands –> part-time work is effective means of improving living conditions –> social > economic
ALSO: purpose for which worker moves intaking up employment is irrelevant (here, chambermaid took up employment just to gain permanent residency)
A-G Slynn
enthusiastic champion of right of individual to improve their living conditions
“Abuse of rights” arguments
Art 35 Directive 2004/38: abuse of rights exception, BUT applies only when work undertaken is not genuine or effective (Hoekstra definition)
Kempf
If worker seeks to supplement income, irrelevant where they’re form –> MS can tighten criteria for social assistance for ALL (not just migrants) or no-one
Lawrie-Blum
3 part definition of what a worker is:
- provides services under direction
- for certain periods of time
- for renumeration
Objective test to be determined by NC, fact that worker resides in one and is employed in another MS is irrelevant
Here, the fact that as a trainee she was paid less than a full teacher’s salary was immaterial for the same reason given in LEVIN and KEMPF: genuine economic nature of work + renumeration
Union citizenship (non-economic rights)
Art. 18 - 25 TFEU
Directive 2004/38
Workers, establishment and services (economic rights)
Art. 45 - 48 (WORKERS)
Art. 49 - 54 (ESTABLISHMENT)
Art. 56 - 62 (SERVICES)
Art 18 TFEU
Prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality within scope of treaties: may be relied on by Union citizen lawfully resident in another MS for rights under EU law
Art 20(1) TFEU
Establishes Union citizenship: anyone with nationality of MS
Art 20(2) TFEU
Union citizens enjoy rights and are subject to duties under treaties: exercise of these subject to conditions under treaties and secondary legislation (mainly Directive 2004/38)
Art 21(1)
Union citizens can move and reside freely within territory of MS - detailed provisions in 2004/38
2004/38, Art 2
Defines “family member” for the purposes of residence rights
2004/38, Art 6
Residence for up to 6 months for UC in other MS - no formalities other than valid identification
2004/38, Art 7
WORKER: UC who become unemployed due to illness/ accidents retain status as workers as do the involuntarily unemployed IF they had been employed for a year or more AND registered as jobseekers
Regulation 492/2011, Art 1 - 6
Eligibility for employment
Regulation 492/2011, Art 7 - 9
Equality within employment
Regulation 492/2011, Art 10
Workers’ families
Steymann (Bhagwan community)
Took Lawrie-Blum concept of economic activity further:: CJEU: INFORMAL renumeration (pocket money, food for his work as a plumber) qualified him as a worker
HOWEVER up to NC to decide and they said he wasn’t a worker
Bettray
The genuine and effective rule: therapeutic work as part of drug rehabilitation was NOT work because purpose of work was to taylor work around his capacities RATHER than meet a genuine economic need
CRITIQUE of Bettray
Mobility of workforce requires reintegration - no sheltered employment for the disabled?
Trojani
Distinguish Bettray: social reintegration itself doesn’t disqualify, CRUCIAL is whether services are capable of being regarded as part of the normal labour market
Here, directed by Salvation Army to work in hostel for 30hrs/week –> worked under normal circumstances, providing real services
Brown
Work undertake purely to prepare for a course of study - worker? YES. But NO social benefits (Kempf)
Ninni-Orasche
Worked as a waitress merely to finance university - worker? YES. But social advantages could be affected
Antonissen
THOSE SEEKING WORK DON’S HAVE FULL STATUS AS WORKER BUT THEY ARE COVERED UNDER ART 45
6 months to look for work was reasonable
CJEU’s purposive approach: If he couldn’t move abroad to see work, how would he get work?
Collins
Collins real link: job seekers having to prove link with those state labour marked (proportionate - several years of residence combined with substantial time seeking work or marriage to HS national)
Ioannidis
Right to apply for jobseekers allowance under the same conditions as nationals in HS BUT Collins real link can be imposed
Vatsouras
2004/38, Art. 24(2): jobseeker entitled to allowance if…
1) social assistance they’re applying for is designed to aid reintegration (no non-work related benefits)
2) jobseeker must show “genuine” link to HS
DEBATE: Vatsouras “genuine” link
In Vatsouras: merely having genuine chance of employment
LOW BAR - academics not necessarily convinced
Direct discrimination cases
Commission v French Republic: French Maritime code was not allowed to require certain proportion of French nationals as crew members
Scheibel: derogation from Art 45 would require strong justification –> trade munitions company pleaded national security –> disproportionate
O’Flynn
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: As long as you can show that provisions are intrinsically liable to produce discrimination, you don’t need to show that they empirically affected a large number of people
Indirect discrimination (more easily satisfied by nationals) - CASES
O’Flynn
Angonese
Ugliola
Commission v Belgium
Angonese (indirect discrimination)
Certificate of bilingualism only obtainable from Bolzano region: easier for Italians
Ugliola (indirect discrimination)
Taking into account of national service in Bundeswehr when establishing worker’s security of employment: easier for Germans
Art 3(1): LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
Usually justify satisfied:
Groener
Las (disproportionate)
Groener
Dutch woman was refused post at design college because she didn’t speak Gaelic –> allowed because it was policy to promote the Irish language
BUT looking at Agonise, it must be allowed to learn lenaguagein another country
Las
All employment contracts where the established place of business was Flanders had to be drafted in Dutch and would be nullified if not –> DISPROPORTIONATE –> no language requirement exception –> indirectly discriminatory
Neither directly or indirectly discriminatory
obstacles to accessing the employment market - restrict general exercise of freedom of movement
Bosman
Football clubs had to pay large sums for players whose contracts had ended –> irrelevant that it applied to all MS –> restricted freedom of movement
Terhoeve
Preclusion from freedom of movement if payment of social contributions when LEAVING country of origin = obstacle to free movement right
Denmark || Van Lent
Rule prohibiting vehicle registered in one MS to be used in another = obstacle to free movement right
EXCEPTION to obstacle to free movement
Weigel: The Court will not accept an argument that because one MS’s taxation is higher than another’s that this is a restriction to free movement BECAUSE taxes have to be paid either way
“Wholly internal” situations - Art 45
Art 45 doesn’t apply to wholly internal situations
Saunders - workers cannot rely on Art 45 against their own state when they have never exercised their right
HOWEVER
Terhoeve: once worker has exercised free movement right, the situation is no longer “wholly internal”
Art 45(4)
THE PUBLIC SERVICE EXEMPTION (Hoekstra: CJEU still has hermeneutic monopoly)
Sotgiu
CJEU had hermeneutic monopoly over the extend of public service exemption
Art 45(4) CANNOT be used to justify discriminatory conditions WITHIN public service ONLY to restrict admission to it in the first place