Workers And Citizenship

Front 1

Cross border element

Back 1

Saunders, Angonese, De Groot

Front 2

Lawrie Blum

Back 2

The essential feature for an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time an individual performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for remuneration.

Front 3

Hoekstra

Back 3

Genuine and effective not merely marginal and ancillary

Front 4

Mr and Mrs F v Belgian State

Back 4

Migrant workers should not merely be seen as a source of labour but as human beings

Front 5

Levin

Back 5

Included part time workers in the definition of free movement of workers

Front 6

Kempf

Back 6

Irrelevant where supplementary means of subsistence came from.

Front 7

Bosmam

Back 7

Sport = economic activity

Front 8

Steymann

Back 8

Unpaid work could be an economic activity

Front 9

Bettray

Back 9

Work to rehabilitate the person and not to meet genuine economic needs was a ruling against bettray

Front 10

Trojani

Back 10

Social integration being the main purpose of employment did not disqualify the employment to be considered as work as long as the work was part of the normal labour market

Front 11

Brown

Back 11

Work temp done solely to qualify for the educational course will not entitle the individual to the same advantages as a fully fledged worker.

Front 12

Lair

Back 12

Worker if work was connected to education but was not solely in preparation of it

Front 13

Ninni-Oraschi

Back 13

Court emphasized the importance of objective factors over subjective factors.

Front 14

Antonnisen

Back 14

Job seeker could come within the definition of a worker. An individual searching for work was not the same as a fully fledged worker. MS retained the right to expel a job seeker who did not find work in a reasonable period of time. Person must provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and have a genuine chance of being employed

Front 15

Direct Discrimination

Back 15

Reyners, Commission v Italy

Front 16

Indirect discrimination

Back 16

Allure and Coonan

Front 17

Ugliolia

Back 17

Job conditional on benefits such as residence

Front 18

Commission v Greece

Back 18

Language

Front 19

Commission v Portugal

Back 19

Double burden

Front 20

Non-discriminatory

Back 20

Bosman

Front 21

Van Duyn

Back 21

MS has ultimate say as to where individuals conduct was contrary to public policy. Government denied eu national from working in the church of Scientology because they consider it to effect mental health. However, working there was merely discouraged and not illegal

Front 22

Adoui

Back 22

Court did not accept that a member state could deport individuals working in a non prohibited job. Van Duyn would most likely be decided differently today

Front 23

Tsakouridis

Back 23

Deported because of dealing drugs and part of an organized drug gang. Public policy must be applied proportionately and with respect to fundamental rights

Front 24

Orfanopoulos

Back 24

Automatic deportation following criminal conviction is not permissible

Front 25

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Back 25

Exclusion order was made against Adams prohibiting his entry into the UK for 3 years, where terrorist activities were committed in Northern Ireland. Argued that internal nature of the case should not prevent application of free movement. The court disagreed and stated that it would be astonishing if no national security measures were placed.

Front 26

Oteiza

Back 26

Individuals with link to terrorist activities was allowed provisional residence in France

Front 27

Calfa

Back 27

Deportation for life was not proportionate

Front 28

Omega Speilhallen

Back 28

War simulation games were refused on grounds of human dignity and right to life

Front 29

Bosman

Back 29

Contest transfer rules were restrictive on freedom

Front 30

Gambling

Back 30

Prevent organized crime, fraud and limit gambling addiction

Front 31

Commission v Belgium

Back 31

Bond of allegiance and mutuality of rights and duties between state and employee. 1) Must involve participation in the exercise of powers conferred by the law. 2) must entail duties designed to safeguard the general interest of the state

Front 32

Lawrie Blum 1

Back 32

Cumulative rather than alternative

Front 33

Sotgui

Back 33

Article 45(4) cannot be used to justify discrimination

Front 34

MRAX v Belgium

Back 34

MS shall give every reasonable opportunity to obtain documents or prove residence by other means

Front 35

Metock

Back 35

Recognizes protection of family life. Directive covers nationals of non member countries who are family members of an EU citizen

Front 36

Raulin

Back 36

In case of involuntary unemployment where a worker has embarked on vocational training may retain the status of a worker. Voluntary unemployment = training must be related to previous employment

Front 37

Collins

Back 37

Job seekers enjoy right of residence and benefits while they are seeking work

Front 38

Michel S

Back 38

Article 7(2) only for workers

Front 39

Cristini

Back 39

Extended 7(2) of regulation to surviving family members

Front 40

Even

Back 40

Benefits are granted to non nationals who are workers or residents is suitable to facilitate their mobility

Front 41

Lair

Back 41

Excluded university from vocational schools

Front 42

Brown

Back 42

Link between previous employment and studies

Front 43

Michel S

Back 43

Disabled nationals were included in article 10. Article applied not just to admission but also any general measures intended to facilitate educational attendance, including an educational grant. Places children of EU workers in the same position as children of nationals of that state.

Front 44

Gaal

Back 44

Children in article 10 included educational rights on children who were over 21 and non dependant

Front 45

Moritz

Back 45

Article 10 covers children's right to education assistance even where the working parents have returned to their state of nationality

Front 46

Lebon

Back 46

Once the child reached 21 and was no longer depends on the worker, benefits to the child could not be an advantage to the worker

Front 47

Reed

Back 47

Unmarried partner residing with national = social advantage

Front 48

Diatta and Singh

Back 48

Where spouses were separated = did not lose right of residence

Front 49

Baumbast

Back 49

Non eu national spouse could exercise right of residence after divorce provided the child is exercising their educational rights under article 10

Front 50

Rutilli

Back 50

French provisions were less restrictive then condition French authorities wanted to apply and therefore right to free movement could be impeded

Front 51

Rottman

Back 51

MS must have due regard to EU law

Front 52

Baumbast

Back 52

Creates directly effective and autonomous right regardless of where the individual is employed or unemployed EU citizen

Front 53

Chen

Back 53

Directly effective and autonomous right to those who do not fall under any other existing EU category. In this case, a baby

Front 54

Kremzow

Back 54

ECJ ruled that citizenship did not extend to internal situations

Front 55

Schempp

Back 55

Individuals who had not made use of his right of free movement would not be treated as a wholly internal situation

Front 56

Garcia Avello

Back 56

Citizenship on applicants who had never left the territory of the MS which they were born. Concerned individual who was also national of another MS

Front 57

Chen 1

Back 57

Mother could not be considered dependant relative in order to derive residence as child was dependant on mother. Depriving mothers right would deprive the child's right of residence

Front 58

Zambrano

Back 58

Refusal of residence of parents would deprive children of their rights

Front 59

McCarthy

Back 59

Individuals who never exercised free movement was insufficient to conclude that the situation is wholly internal

Front 60

Dereci

Back 60

Genuine enjoyment of citizenship refers to situations where individuals not only have to leave the MS in which they are nationals but also the EU as a whole

Front 61

Trojani

Back 61

No right of residence where EU nationals have lack of resources, but can claim social benefits if they can come under another category

Front 62

Gravier

Back 62

Access to vocational training was likely to promote free movement provision

Front 63

Lair and Brown

Back 63

Grants specific to access of vocational training were covered

Front 64

Grzelczyk

Back 64

Eu citizens entitled to equal treatment on grounds of nationality in relation to benefits

Front 65

Forster

Back 65

MS can limit grants to those who show sufficient degree of integration within MS

Front 66

Bidar

Back 66

Although MS have power limit grants to those students fully integrated, a blanket prohibition would be accepted as otherwise it would mean no student would comply

Front 67

Morgan

Back 67

Integration requirement must not be unreasonable

Front 68

D'Hoop

Back 68

There must be sufficient link between job seeker and the host state, which was not established in this case

Front 69

Collins

Back 69

Job seekers must have some kind of link with the employment market and residence condition has to be applied proportionately and non discriminatory

Front 70

Votsouras

Back 70

Benefits which are intended to facilitate access to the labour market do not constitute social assistance

Front 71

Wolzenburg

Back 71

Additional administrative requirement must not be imposed on non nationals

Front 72

Omega and Schindler

Back 72

Conflict between free movement rules and charter, charter will prevail