Free movement of workers Flashcards
Art. 3 Reg 492/2011 states that linguistic knowledge required by the job is an exception to the application of equality of access to that job. What is the case that codified this situation?
Groener (1989): a Dutch teacher who applied for a job in Ireland, and had to fulfill an Irish test, but failed, so she did not get the job. She entered with an action in the CJEU, and the Court stated that imposing the Irish language was a way of maintaining traditions and strengthening the culture, so the measure was legitimate.
The case Lawrie-Blum (1986) on the definition of “worker”.
A worker is someone who performs, for a certain period of time, services for, and under the direction of, someone else in return for remuneration.
Explain the case GV v. Ireland, and the opinion of Advocate General Capeta.
GV is a mother of a Romanian citizen who was working in Ireland. GV moved to Ireland and applied for a disability allowance, which was denied on the ground that it would be a burden for the State. Advocate General Capeta’ opinion was that the dependence exists whenever a parent needs material support, and that deniyng the allowance solely on the grounds that it would be a burden is against the principle of equal treatment. The final decision of the Court precluded national legislation to allow the refusal of a social welfare nevefit to a direct relative of a worker.
Collin (2004), regarding right to social benefit as a job-seeker.
Collin is American with Irish citizenship, who studied and worked in the UK for 10 months. He went back to the USA, and 17 years later he got back to the Uk where he applied for an jobseeker’s allowance, which was denied. The court hel that he’s not to be considered a worker because he could not prove a genuine link with the labour market. MS can impose residence requirements to prove this link, but it mus t proportionate and not automatically exclude indiviudals.
Case Giersch (2013) regarding frontier workers.
Luxembourg legislation granted student financial aid for higher education studies abroad to nationals of Luxembourg or to EU citizens residing in Luxembourg. However, this legislation did not apply to frontier workers’ children. The Court held that this exclusion was indirectly discriminatory, considering that a vast part of workers in Luxembourg was constituted of frontier workers, so it was disproportionatly disadventaging their children’s access to the social benefit.
