Free movement of workers in the EU. The legacy of enlargement

Standard

Marcus Cleaver

definition – a worker is defined in Lawrie Bloom case 1986

someone who during a period of time performs services under the direction of another for remuneration

economic aspects and formal aspects

remuneration can be food and board. Steymann case

Kempf – the payment does not have to be enough to live on. In this case the worker still relied on benefits to be able to live

Levin  – does not have to be full time work

Hoekstra – even when someone loses a job someone is given a reasonable amount of time to find a job

article 45 (1). a good way of approaching the revision

sets out the right. free movement of workers should be secured in the EU

EU is about bringing people together

Union in place

45 (2) – do not discriminate against foreign workers

Collins was denied access to job seekers allowance. A citizen of another EU state must get same beneifts

==============

45 (3) rights and limitations

right to accept offers of employment

right to move freely within a member state

 

right to remember in a member state for a job

right to remain after ahving been employed

===============

Case law

directive – 2004/38. this expands on workers’ rights

right to entere and leave

right to reside.

article 6 of the directive once you arrive even if you do not have a job you can stay for 3 months

you need to show that it looks likely you will find a job to stay beyond 3 months jobless. If you have an interview coming up you can stay

Antonissen 1991 – person had been in UK for 6 months. the court said that is more than enough time to find a job the UK was right to expel him

right to remain after losing a job due to illness, made redundant or entering vocational training

right to permanent residence after 5 years. article 16

-===================

public policy limitation.

van Duyn. 1974 Dutch scientologist came to UK . The UK did not want him there. He ECJ agreed and said the member state was allowed to choose on the basis of their culture what is allowed .

this is a judgment of its time

article 27 (2) – this says that the person would have to be a direct and immediate threat to the country due to article 27 of 2004/38

Crown v Bouchereau – public security. The UK wanted to expel a French worker who had committed a threat . The ECJ said look at the gravity of the crime, how long ago the conviction was

1977 case

Public health – contagious disease

Ebola and bird flu

HIV/AIDS is not a reason to keep people out

===========

article 45 (4)

public sector. these are excluded from free movement

these have especial loyalty to the state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About Calers

Born Belfast 1971. I read history at Edinburgh. I did a Master's at UCL. I have semi-libertarian right wing opinions. I am married with a daughter and a son. I am allergic to cats. I am the falling hope of the not so stern and somewhat bending Tories. I am a legal beagle rather than and eagle. Big up the Commonwealth of Nations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s