Free Movement of Persons

Question 1

what case do we start off with when talking about a worker? what did it show?

Answer 1

Hoekstra showed that there was no definition of worker and that it was an EU concept.

Question 2

what did Laurie-Blum show?

Answer 2

that there are now three standards which must be met when defining the term worker.

that they performs services for and under the direction of another.

in return for remuneration.

for a certain period of time.

Question 3

when do we use the Gebhard test?

Answer 3

we use the Gebhard test When the EU has not legislated on an issue. there may be a valid reason for covert discrimination but it must satisfy these requirements.

They must be applied in a non-discriminatory way

they must be justified in the general interest

they must be suitable for securing attainment of the objective they pursue

they must not go beyond what is necessary to attain it

Question 4

what is discrimination which is explicitly to do with the nationality of the person?
Bosman

Answer 4

overt discrimination

Bosman (footballer was not allowed to join a team because of his nationality)

Question 5

discrimination is not nationality but some other criteria leads to discrimination on the basis of nationality?

S-K v Hamburg

Answer 5

Covert discrimination.

this is seen in S-K v Hamburg
where a greek doctor had 6 years of experience but the government only awarded pay rise to those were a doctor in Germany for 8 years.

Question 6

what does article 45 TFEU tell us?

Answer 6

Freedom of workers shall have no discrimination due to their nationality between workers of member states as regards to employment.

Question 7

why is article 8 of regulation 492/11 so important?

Answer 7

allows people to enter into any train union that they wish.

Question 8

why is article 10TFEU important?

Answer 8

combats discrimination based on sex, racial, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Question 9

why are train union people allowed to stay?

Answer 9

due to the verdict in the Viking case, they said that article 49 and 56 applied to train unions contemplating or taking strike action. Therefore allowing them to stay in the country and not get discriminated upon as it is a self-employed activity or providing a service. in addition this showed that this allowed for horizontal direct effect.

Question 10

what was shown in Hoekstra?

Answer 10

was shown that there is no defenition of worker and the term worker is an EU concept

Question 11

can students and those of independent means stay in other countries?

Answer 11

Yes as long as they are not a burden on the social assistance system and have sufficient

Question 12

does someone need to get married to stay in the country?

Answer 12

no as CRD (3) says that a durable relationship is enough.

Question 13

does my partner need to be a union citizen for me to have free movement?

Answer 13

No according to CRD 7

Question 14

what did the Bosman case show?

Answer 14

Made clear that there was Horizontal Direct effect. It was an unlawful restriction on his right to free movement. Indirect obsticles to free movement are contrary to EU Law.
Shown in Article 18+45TFEU
Overt Discrimination

Question 15

what did the case of Cristini show? what law backs this up? what must you firstly prove?
which

Answer 15

that you can get concessions on rail travels.

the law which backs this up is Article 7(2) regulation 492/2011

you must firstly prove that they are a worker and go through the checks.

Question 16

what did
Reed
Deak
Reina
Matteucci show?

Answer 16

social benefits 
R-cohabitation
D-social security benefits 
R-Child birth loans 
M- Educational grants

Question 17

where will i find the legislation for Trade union rights?

Answer 17

Regulation 492/11 Article 8

Question 18

which article provides the non discrimination for workers moving from country to country?

Answer 18

Article 48(b) TFEU

Question 19

what did Zhu and Chen show?

Answer 19

child was born in northern ireland
moves back to whales. mother applies to remain in UK. Refused. Mother was not entitled to remain in UK.
Therefore child is EU CITIZEN AND CAN RELY ON ARTICLE 21. therefore the mother can stay in the UK

Question 20

what did the case of Kempf show?

Answer 20

showed that part time workers can still have workers rights even though she worked for 12 hours per week. PROVIDED IT IS AN EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE ACTIVITY

Question 21

what did commission v Belgium show?

Answer 21

public service exception refers to ‘posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of power conferred by the public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or other public authorities.

Question 22

what did R v Boucherau show?

Answer 22

that for a member state to expell someone there needs to be a very high bar as seen in the case where it is said that there needs to be a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental intrests of society. this is seen in articles 27(2) and 28 (1) (2) (3) only these grounds will require expulsion.

therefore must take into account the circumstances of the citizen.