EU Law - Article 45 TFEU: Free Movement of Worker I
- Created by: Alasdair
- Created on: 15-11-20 18:06
View mindmap
- Article 45 TFEU: Free Movement of Worker I
- What is a 'Worker'?
- ECJ gave basic definition of worker
- Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttemberg (case 66/85) [1986] ECR 2121
- A worker is a person who:
- Performs services for another person
- under control of other person
- Receives remuneration
- ECJ gave basic definition of worker
- Workseekers
- R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal,ex p Antoniessen (case C-292/89) [1991] ECR I-745
- ECJ ruled person seeking work also came within scope of Article 45 TFEU
- Thus Union citizen has right to move to another Member State to look for work and not merely to take up employment.
- Lost some of its significance
- due to Directive 2004/38 being in force, as Article 6(1) of Directive grants all Union citizens a right of residence of up to three months in other Member States
- there is no need for them to be carrying on an economic or any other activity during that period.
- Article 14(4)(b) of Directive
- Provides Union citizens who entered host State to look for worker may not be expelled for
- as a long as they can provide evidence they are still looking for work and have genuine chance of being engaged.
- Provides Union citizens who entered host State to look for worker may not be expelled for
- due to Directive 2004/38 being in force, as Article 6(1) of Directive grants all Union citizens a right of residence of up to three months in other Member States
- ECJ ruled person seeking work also came within scope of Article 45 TFEU
- R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal,ex p Antoniessen (case C-292/89) [1991] ECR I-745
- Scope and Concept of 'Worker'
- Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 58/81) {1982] ECR 1035
- ECJ: Part-time workers are considered workers in EU Law.
- A part-time worker is a 'worker' under Article 45 TFEU, provided work is 'effective and genuine' and not on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary'
- Wide concept
- Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 139/85) [1986] ECR 1741
- Kempf, a German national, was part-time music teacher.
- He supplemented his income, which was below subsistence level, with State benefits.
- ECJ again confirmed part-time worker was a 'worker'
- even if he supplements his income by 'other lawful means' including 'public funds' (State benefits)
- Steymann v Staatssecretars van Justitie (case 196/87) [1988] ECR 6159
- Steymann, German national, was member of Bhagwan religious community in Netherlands which provided for material needs of its members.
- In return, he carried out various activities, including plumbing
- ECJ held that even unpaid worker for religious community could be a 'worker'
- Because his work contributed towards community's economic activities and benefits he received from community in return were kind of 'indirect' wage
- Steymann, German national, was member of Bhagwan religious community in Netherlands which provided for material needs of its members.
- Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 344/87) [1989] ECR 1621
- Bettray, a drug addict, was undertaking therapeutic work as part of a drug-rehabilitation programme.
- Scheme was designed to reintegrate people who were temporarily incapacitated into workforce.
- They received payment and were treated, as far as possible, as ordinary employees
- ECJ found work carried out by drug addict as part of a rehabilitation scheme did not make him a 'worker'
- The purpose of work was to benefit him, not to carry out economic activity.
- Steymann and Bettray emphasise workers must be carrying out work that is genuine economic activity.
- Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 58/81) {1982] ECR 1035
- What is a 'Worker'?
Comments
No comments have yet been made