ws5 Flashcards
Lawrie-Blum v Land [1986]
ECJ gave a basic definition of a worker as a person who:
- Performs services for another person;
- Under the control of that other person;
- Receives remuneration.
Levin [1982]
Part-time worker is a ‘worker’ provided the work is effective and genuine, and not so small as to be regarded as marginal.
Kempf [1986]
A part-time worker is a ‘worker’ even if income is supplemented by ‘other lawful means’ including public funds.
Steymann [1988]
ECJ held that even an unpaid worker for a religious community could be a ‘worker’.
The payment does have to be money - food and board etc.
Bettray [1989]
Rehabilitation scheme did not fit under the scope of ‘worker’ as the purpose of the work was for his benefit, not for economic activity.
R v Saunders [1979]
- UK national who broke an order to not return to England or Wales
- Found outside the scope of ‘worker’ as it was a wholly domestic situation.
- The right under Article 45 is triggered by moving to a host State
R v IAT, ex p Atonissen [1991]
ECJ ruled that a person seeking work also came within the scope of Article 45 TFEU.
This case has lost some significant now that Directive 2004/38 is in force:
- Article 6(1) grants Union citizens right of residence for three months in other Member States - no requirement to work.
- Article 14(4(b) provides Union citizens cannot be expelled if they can provide evidence that they are still looking for work with a genuine chance of employment.
Micheletti [1992]
Each Member State defines its own concept of nationality. Qualification is under national law.
Royer [1976]
- Right of residence is not governed by any documents which are required to be provided, they are merely evidence that the individual has the right.
- Non-compliance with these formalities make the person liable to proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions - expulsion disproportionate.
Rahman [2012]
- Article 3(2) requires Member States to consider more favourably applications from those who have relationships with a Union citizen than those who don’t.
- Member States retain a wide discretion so Article 3(2) not precise enough to have direct effect.
- But, discretion to refuse must be based on an extensive examination of the circumstances and any decision must be justifiable - also judicially reviewable.
Netherlands State v Reed [1986]
- Ruled that the term ‘spouse’ did not cover non-marital relationships, therefore cohabitee was not a ‘family member’
- Now covered by Article 3(2)(b), but still, not ‘family members’ and benefit from lesser rights.
Diatta [1985]
- ECJ stated that there was no need for a migrant worker’s spouse to live in the same accommodation as the worker.
- Still married, even if they were separated.
Sandhu [1985]
- Migrant worker returned to her home State, leaving her spouse behind.
- House of Lords refused to make an Article 267 TFEU reference, believing that the spouse no longer had a secondary right to stay there.
- Arguably the right decision as seen in Article 12(3) of the Directive, which places emphasis on children - implicitly supports this verdict.
Surinder Singh [1992]
ECJ held that returning migrant workers are permitted to bring their spouses home with them
Accordingly, a spouse of a Union citizen who is returning to their home State has the same rights as if they were moving to another.
Commission v Belgium [1980]
Narrowed the scope for ‘public service’ - in terms of Article 45(4) exception.
In order to satisfy this exception, the job has to involve ‘safeguarding the general interests of the state’.
