7274639
Description
Flashcards by Spencer Bienvenue, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Spencer Bienvenue
over 7 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Walrave & Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale (Case 36/74) [1974] ECR 1405 (Walgrave & Koch) | held that sport is subject to art 45 in so far as it constitutes an economic activity having the character of gainful employment. case: concerned two Dutch nationals who acted as professional pace makers in motor paced cycle races. wanted to challenge the rules of the int. body regulating the races claiming that the rules for team composition discriminated on the basis of nationality. this also applies to professional and semi-professional footballers who are in gainful employment. see: Union Royal Belge des Societies de Football Association ASBL v Jean Marc Bosman. |
| Walgrave & Koch worker definition | to be a worker a person must be engaged in an economic activity having the character of gainful employment. |
| Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (Case 66/85) [1986] ECR 2121 (Lawrie-Blum) | the essential feature of an employment relationship ... is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration. thus three essential criteria for an employment relationship: 1. preform services 2. for and under direction of another 3. in return for remuneration. designation is irrelevant case: british national who went to Germany to train as a teacher. refused admission to preparatory service stage of training due to not being a german national. Germany said she was not a worker, Court disagreed as the trainee position satisfied above definition of worker. |
| Hoekstra (nee Unger) v Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel en Ambachten (Case 75/63) [1964] ECR 177 (Hoekstra) | a union definition of a worker, court held that whether or not a person is a worker was not to be defined by national law but was to be given a union meaning thus ensuring the definition is consistent across MS so that the free movement rules are not frustrated Verified art 45 (3) (d) = observed that the right to stay in MS after having been employed in that MS protects a person who has left his job an dis capable of taking another. |
| Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 53/81) [1982] ECR 1035 (Levin) | "rules governing free mov of workers, cover only the pursuit of effective and genuine activities, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as marginal or ancillary" case: family moves to Netherlands, claim to have sufficient resources to support selves, however wife takes minimum wage job below requirement level as back up. held was ok if activity was 'genuine and effective and not merely marginal and ancillary' |
| Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 139/85) [1986] ECR 1741 (Kempf) | ensured that the concept of worker includes parts time employment provided the work is neither nominal or minimal case held that such is the case when the person supplements his income by recourse to social security benefits provided by the MS. Case concerned German music teacher who works part time in the netherlands. He was relying on state money, and the court concluded that he was still eligible to apply for a residence permit despite the fact his wage was below the minimum. Regardless of where money comes from, the activity/job must be deemed effective and of a genuine nature. |
| Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 196/87) [1988] ECR 6159 (Steymann) | concerned a german member of a religious community in the Netherlands who had applied for a residence permit there eon the ground that he was pursuing an activity as an employed person i.e plumbing and house work for the religious community. he was 'remunerated' with pocket money food and accommodation. |
| Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 344/87) [1989] ECR 1621 (Bettray) | involved a German drug addict employed under a legislative scheme in the netherlands designed to provide employment for the sole purpose of maintaining restoring or impcrivnt he capacity for work of persons who were nobel to work under normal conditions. Court claimed he was not engaged in effective and genuine economic activity, even though the employment satisfied the Lauwrie-Blum test. Reason was because the purpose of his work was rehabilitaroy in nature, therefore any economic activity involved was purely ancillary ito the primary social objectives and not adding to economic activity. |
| Trojani v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) (Case C-456/02) [2004] ECR I-7573 (Trojani) | similar case to Lawrie-Blum, was left to domestic dutch court to determine effective and genuine economic activity |
| Procureur du Roi v Royer (Case 48/75) [1976] ECR 497 (Procureur du Roi) | extended the scope of art 45: confers a right on nationals of a MS to enter and reside int he territory of another MS in order to look for work further developed in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal |
| R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen (Case 292/89) [1991] ECR I-745 (Antonissen) | concerned an order to deport a belgian national fro the UK who had entered seeking employment and had not secured work after the six month period laid down in the UK. Court held that nationals of MS to move freely within the territory of other MS and stay there for job seeking purposes. A strict interpretation of 45 would jeopardize the chances that a national of a MS seeing employment would find it in another MS and then undermine the purpose of the art. Now codified in Art 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38 6 months is reasonable time limit but can be extended if proof of job search is provided. |
| Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-85/96) [1998] ECR I-2691 (Martinez) | laid foundation for central link between economic activity and free movement being eroded as the circumstances in which non-economically a time persons have been able to benefit from free movement rights has expanded by reason of their ability to rely on Union citizenship. |
| Grezlczyk v Centre Public d'Aidd Sociale (Case C-184/99) [2001] ECR I-6193 (Grezlczyk) | court declared: 'Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the MS enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exception as are expressly provided for. -specific rules governing movement of citizens is provided in directive 2004/38 Case: French national studying in Belgium, applied for funding for final year of studies. Ws rejected as Belgian law provided financing for Belgian nationals or refugees only. HE did not fall under section 7(2) of 492/2011 but was lawfully residing in the country and thus the funding could not be denied. |
| Netherlands State v Reed (Case 59/85) [1985] ECR 1283 Reed | concerns cohabiting unmarried couples british woman lived with her partner in the Netherlands was refused a residence permit. Court held that he term 'spouse' in art 10 was confine to a person this married to the worker. instead court allowed her to rely on art 7(2) of the regulation (1612/68) that a worker shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers, dutch law permitted a foreign who was living with a dutch citizen in a stable relationship to live in netherlands, The court thus held that this was a social advantage to the dutch citizen and had to ve avialable to the nationals of other MS working in netherlands. |
| Diatta v Land Berlin (Case 267/83) [1985] ECR 567 Diatta | separation and divorce: Rights of a spouse will remain unaffected by separation from the Union citizen so long as the marriage has not been dissolved. case: Senegalese national living and working in Germany operated from French partner, initiated divorce. residence permit renewal was rejected as she was no longer a 'family member' of Union citizen. If marriage had not been dissolved she could have remained in Germany. Divorce: Diatta suggested that the right to reside would be lost once the marriage had been dissolved. Art 13 of 2004/38 now provides for the retention in certain circumstances, right of residence by family members in the event of divorce or anummlent. see article card. |
| Commission v France (Case 167/73) [1974] ECR 359 (French Merchant Seamen) | direct discrimination case french ministerial order whine imposed an overall ration of three french to one foreign national on ships of the merchant fleet and reserved certain positions only to french nationals. Court held that the right to free movement of workers extended to sea transport and that the order breached art 45 TFEU and art 4 of reg 492/2011. Ministerial order should have been amended. |
| Württembergische Milchverwertung-Sudmilch-AG v Ugliola (Case 15/69) [1970] ECR 363 | concerned an italian who had interrupted his employment in West Germany in order to fulfill his obligation as an Italian citizen to undertake compulsory military service in the italian army. West Germany only made allowances for participation in their army, Court held that this breached art 45 as it indirectly discrimentled against those who had foreign conscription. contrast with Sotgiu |
| Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost (Case 152/73) [1974] ECR 153 Sotgiu | illustrates how it is possible to justify indirect discrimination under objective public interest grounds. workers int he West German federal Postal Service received a separation allowance when the were employed away from home. This was increased per day for workers whose residence was within germany at a higher rate than for those who lived abroad. Sotgiu, an italian national, had family in Italy. Court held was objectively justifiable. public service issue: see also, Commission v Belgium (Public Employees) |
| Groener v Ministry for Education (Case 379/87) [1989] ECR 3967 Groener | art 3(1) of reg 492/2011 prohibits discrimination by MS in respect of applications and offers for employment but then qualifies th prohibition by adding that it shall not apply to conditions relations the linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled. Case: concerned a Dutch national who had been engaged on a temporary basis as a part time lecturer in an art college in ireland. She applied for a permanent position which would be taught in english. Minister refused application as she had failed Irish Gaelic class. This qualification was applied to everyone. Court upheld decision as gaelic was essential to Irish culture and teachers should protect it. |
| Union Royal Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Bosman (Case C-415/93) [1995] ECR I-4921 Bosman | Bosman was a belgian footballer whose contract expired in belgium. Wanted to transfer to french club. Transfer system of football associations, his club wouldn't release him without payment of transfer fee by the french club. Was standard practice and not discriminatory. however, Court held that the fee directly affected players' access to the employment market intoner MS and so were capable of impeding the freedom of movement for workers. |
| Gul v Regierungspräsident Dusseldorf (Case 131/85) [1986] ECR 1573 Gul | a turkish cypriot doctor living in Germany with UK wife. wife was a hairdresser. his application to renew his medical license was rejected. Court art 23 of 2004/38 provided him the right, as a spouse of a national of a MS employed in the territory to take up any activity of an employed person on the same conditions a s worker under reg 492/2011. He was therefore entitled to rely on art 3(1) of reg 492/2011. |
| Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Case 138/02) [2004] ECR I-2073 Collins | social advantage for workers Court held that jobseeker was not a worker for the purpose of art 7(2) of reg 492/2011. thus a jobseeker would not be entitled to the same social and tax advantages as the nationals of the host MS on thesis of that art. If a job seeker cannot claim entitlement to social advantages under 7(2) he may still be able to rely on his Union Citizenship. |
| Social advantage: Christina v SNCF (Case 32/75) [1975] ECR 1085 | held that art 7(2) includes: all social and tax advantages, whether or not attached to the contract of employment such as reductions in fares for large families. eg: Social advantages include: -discretionary childbirth loans: Reina -Minimum income allowance: Hoeckx -right of a non national who lives with a non national in a stable relationship to reside in the MS: Reed. -Funeral expenses benefits: O'Flynn. Family members can indirectly qualify for the right under art 7(2) |
| restrictions to 7(2) 492/2011 Ministère Public v Evan (Case 207/78) [1979] ECR 2019 | Court emphasized that the social advantages are confined to: 'those which wheterh or not linked to contact of employment are general granted to workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence of ht national territory. case: french national in belgium in receipt of early retirement pension. pension was held due to the fact that the exception was not based upon nationality. case didn't win. |
| Inzirillo v Caisse d'Allocations Familiales (Case 63/76) [1976] ECR 2057 Inzirillo | Court held that the right under 7(2) extended to a social advantage which the family member alone qualified for. Italian national wo lived and worked in France applied for allowance for handicapped adults on behalf of disabled son. as son was a dependent, was entitled to right under 7(2). |
| Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-85/96) [1998] ECR I-2691 (Martinez Sala) | concerned a spanish national who had lawfully resided Germany. now unemployed and receiving social assistance. applied for renewal of her residence permit but was still waiting on confirmation. She was denied a child raising grant due to not having a residence permit and being unemployed. Art 18 TFEU banned all discrimination based on nationality for all situations which fall in the scope of the treaties., therefore Germany could not refuse the child raising grant, as German nationals were not required to have a residence permit. |
| D'Hoop v Office national de l'Emploi (Case C-224/98) [2002] ECR I-6191 D'Hoop | Court held that when reading art 20 TFEU with art 18, could also prohibit discrimination by a MS against one of its own nationals where that discrimination resulted from the national of the MS exercising her right as a Union citizen to reside in another MS. Case: Belgian national who sought a tide over allowance from her own gov. form of unemployment benefit. Was refused as she had not completed all of her secondary schooling in Belgium. Was upheld due to the fact that she was a Union citizen and had the freedom of movement. indirect discrimination against own national |
| Dano and Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Case C-333/13) [2014] ECR I-0000 Dano and Dano | Romanian nationals living in Germany. Dani had a residence card of unlimited duration. was not employed or looking for work, Art 7(1)(b) seeks to prevent economically inactive Uinon citizens from using the host MS welfare system to fund means of subsistence, could not invoke the principle of equal treatment with nationals of a MS as she was not even fulfilling the base requirements for such a right. |
| Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland (Case 197/86) [1988] ECR 3205 | Court defined term vocational schools as referring solely to establishments which provide only instruction interposed between periods of employment or else closely connected with employment, particularly during apprenticeships. |
| Blaizot v University of Liege (Case 24/86) [1988] ECR 379 | Court held that University education will generally satisfy the der of vocational training. only exceptions are courses which because of their particular nature are intended for persons wishing to improve their general knowledge rather than to prepare themselves for an occupation. |
| Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt München (Case 9/74) [1974] ECR 773 | Court held that it referred not only to admission but also to general measures intended to facilitate educational attendance. This included educational grants. |
| R (bidar) v ealing LBC (Case C-209/03) [2005] ECR I-2119 | French national who entered the Uk with his mother who was receiving medical treatment. Was a dependent on his grandmother and received secondary education in france. went to UK uni and was granted financial assistance in respect of his tuition, but student loan app was rejected. Court held that the directive itself cannot provide the basis for a right to payment of maintenance grants. the art did not preclude the right to equal treatment in respect of student grants and loans. Therefor a union citizen who enjoyed a right of residence in the UK under art 20 had a right to equal treatment under art 18 in respect of student grants or loans, Bidar fulfilled the requirements. UK residency requirement for student loans was indirectly discriminatory and thus held that it could be discriminatory based upon time student had lived in host MS. s |
| Van Duyn v Home Office (Case 41/74) [1974] ECR 1337 Van Duyn | Dutch national who wanted to work as a secretary for the church o scientology. Job was allowed but she was denied entrance as the UK considered the activities of the church socially harmful. was upheld. |
| Adoui and Cornuaille (Cases 115& 116/81) [1982] ECR | held that he discrimination (deportation) must not be arbitrary. case: Belgian Ministry of Justice missed orders to deport two French nationals not he grounds that they were prostitutes. Prostitution was not unlawful, but certain associated activities were. Court held it was arbitrary to rely on the derogation to expel or refuse admission to nationals of another MS by reason of their conduct where its own nationals would not be subject to repressive measure intended to combat the same conduct (anti discriminatory and proportionality) |
| Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln (Case 67/74) ECR 297 Bonsignore | Italian worker resident in germany was convicted and fined for unlawful possession of a firearm and for negligently causing his brother's death as a result of careless handling. West German court fined him for the firearm but had o imposed any punishment for killing as he had been deeply affected but brother's death and vowed not to touch a gun again. Deportation was ordered. Purpose was to deter other foreign nationals from committing firearm offenses. Court stressed that measures adopted not he founds of public policy/security could not be justified on the basis of factors extraneous to the individual cases. deportation order may only be made for breaches of the peace and public security which might be committed by the individual affected. in could NOT be ordered for eh purpose of deterring others. |
| R v Bouchereau (Case 30/77) [1977] ECR 1999 | requirement that the personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine , present and sufficiently serous threat affecting one father fundamental interests of society. person had been convicted on two occasion in less than a year of the possession of drugs. court left it to national court to determine whether or not hat person die represent such a serious threat. past criminal convictions are not in themselves grounds for justifying a derogation: court established that a single conviction can provide a good ground for deportation in exceptional circumstances where it reveals the person concerned to be a present danger to society and so it is not necessary to show a tendency for him to offend again. |
| Rutili v Minister for the Interior (Case 36/75) [1975] ECR 1219 Rutili | Exclusion must be compatible with fundamental human rights Italian national who lived in france since birth was employed there. Following trade union activity complaints, was banned room living in Lorraine region. restrictions on fundamental human rights must be necessary in a democratic society. that is to say that its has to be proportionate. thus the Court concluded that a prohibition on residence must be imposed only in respect to the whole of the national territory (country) |
| Orfanopoulos v Land Baden-Württemberg (Cases C-482/01) [2004] ECR I-5257 | Court has made it clear that fundamental rights must be taken into account in determining whether or not a measure which restrict the free moment of person can be justified on the ground of public policy/security. Case: greek national, drug addict, was expelled form germany after having been convicted several times for various offenses. Court held that the right to respect for family life guaranteed by art 8 of ECHR had to be taken into account as he was being removed from a MS where close members of his family are living. Also emphasize data the principal of proportionality must be observed. |
| Commission v Belgium (Case 149/79) [1980] ECR 3881 (Public Employees) | a series of posts which involve direct or indirect participation int eh exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the state of of other public authorities. such posts in fact presume on the part of those occupying them the existence of a special relationship of allegiance to the state and reciprocity of rights and duties which from the foundation of the bond of nationality. case: concerned advertisement for several posts with two Belgian national railway companies and two belgian local authorities which were reserved for nationals only. Court held that position within the public service are not discriminatory. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.