freedom of persons L9-14

Question 1

lawrie-blum v land baden-wurttemburg:

Answer 1

defined worker as someone who performs a service, under direction of another, for remuneration

Question 2

steymann case:

Answer 2

do not have to have substantial salary to become a worker (bed, food and pocket money for work in religious community)

Question 3

levin case:

Answer 3

• -worker should not be interpreted differently according to the law of each MS, has a community meaning and should be interpreted broadly;
• doesn’t matter if income is lower than the amount required for subsistence if work is effective and genuine

Question 4

antonissen case:

Answer 4

courts can extend freedom of movement for job-seekers; although can be removed after 6 months if no evidence of job seeking or genuine chance of being engaged
-seekers also entitled to less social rights than workers although can receive JSA

Question 5

who is Art 45 TFEU extended to?

Answer 5

• job seekers
• those no longer working through retirement or illness
• families of workers

Question 6

what case excluded someone who works in a drug rehabilitation programme for reintegration as a ‘worker’?

Answer 6

bettray v SvJ

Question 7

brown case: (internship prior to study)

Answer 7

no qualification as worker if work marginal and ancillary

Question 8

cristini v societe case:

Answer 8

family of deceased worker entitled to the same social rights (railcard) prior to his death

Question 9

difference between direct and indirect discrimination?

Answer 9

direct- difference in treatment based on nationality itself

indirect- difference not based purely on nationality, however effects non-nationals more severely than nationals

Question 10

case for direct discrimination?

Answer 10

commission v italy (2001) - italian law - private security firms

Question 11

case for obstacle to access employment?

Answer 11

bosman case 1995 (excessive transfer fees in football team - restricting free movement without consideration of nationality) - bosman principle (cannot deter national from leaving MS to go to another)

Question 12

case for indirect discrimination?

Answer 12

angonese (2000); language certificate only acknowledged if from one specific province - not proportional to aim; held Art 45 has direct effect

Question 13

exceptions under public policy and security in article 45? (case)

Answer 13

van duyn v home office: refusual is justified by personal conduct, not mere association

Question 14

what do articles 6 and 7 of citizenship directive state?

Answer 14

6- right to residence in a MS for up to 3 months without formalities (other than passport)
7- right to residence over 3 months if they are
(a) workers;
(b) have sufficient resources/have sickness cover;
(c) are enrolled in private/public education - family are also entitled to stay if they satisfy a, b or c

Question 15

if a citizen becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the MS, they may lose their right of residency (what article)

Answer 15

article 14, citizenship directive 2004/38

Question 16

article 16 CD 2004: and exception in article 17

Answer 16

right to reside permanently in MS after 5 years continuously residence; right will only be lost if continued absence for 2 consecutive years
exception: those who have worked for 3 years and reached the age of retirement (factual residence required not legal)

Question 17

article 24 CD 2004:

Answer 17

right to equal treatment to all under this directive; however in first 3 months host MS not required to provide social assistance other than for job-seekers

Question 18

what constitutes ‘family members’ under CD 2004?

Answer 18

article 2 - family members include; 
spouse or registered partner
children (aged 21 or under)
dependant parents or grand parents
article 3 - beneficiary (relationship duly tested) may be allowed entry (not a right) under circumstances

Question 19

Chen case: (rights of non-EU nationals with minor EU dependants)

Answer 19

child should be able to enjoy rights and freedoms that come with being an EU national and to refuse residence would be depriving them of Art 20 right - therefore non-citizen mother also has right to reside to care for child

Question 20

can a member state revoke its nationality? case

Answer 20

rottmann case; CJEU found if the courts are proportional in their reasoning to withdraw nationality (e.g. due to fraud) then that it a legitmate aim - regardless of whether the person becomes stateless as a result

Question 21

dano case:

Answer 21

held article 7 CD; non-economically active citizen must have sufficient resources and not be an uneccessary burden on state finances if wishing to reside for longer than 3 months