Order Description
HAND-IN ASSIGNMENT: FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS:
– Review the ECJ case law surrounding Articles 45-46 TFEU, analysing, in particular, the development of the ‘imperative requirements’ or ‘objective justification’ test in relation to obstacles which impede the free movement of workers between member States.
– Critically discuss to what extent the free movement of workers is now a legally feasible freedom in the EU. Your answer should focus on the extent of the freedom of movement enjoyed by workers in Member States where this freedom has been fully implemented.
REQUIRED RESOURCES
Textbook
P Craig and G de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edn, OUP 2011)
• Chapter 21, ‘Free Movement of Workers’, discusses the following topics on pages 715-763:
o Central issues
o Article 45: direct effect
o Article 45: worker and the scope of protection
o Article 45: discrimination, market access and justification
o Article 45(4): the public service exception
o Directive 2004/38: right of entry and residence of workers and their families
o Regulation 1612/68: substantive rights and social advantages
o Directive 2004/38: public policy, security and health restrictions
o Free movement of workers: current assessment
Online treaties, directives and regulations
• Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2010] OJ C83/01 <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm>
The treaty you will study for this course is the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Tables of Equivalences can also be found on the Official Journal C83 of 30 March 2010.
Read Articles 45 and 46 TFEU.
• Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (CELEX 32004L0038) <http://eur-lex.europa.eu//RECH_celex.do>
• Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (CELEX 31968R1612) <http://eur-lex.europa.eu//RECH_celex.do>
SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES:
– L Daniele, ‘Non-Discriminatory Restrictions to the Free Movement of Persons’ (1997) 22 European Law Review 191
– S O’Leary, ‘The Past, Present and Future of the Purely Internal Rule in EU Law’ (2009) 44 Irish Jurist 13
WEEKLY NOTES
Free movement of workers:
This week introduces introduce you to the following:
Freedom of movement for workers 39-40 45-46
Extract from the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)1
TITLE IV CHAPTER 1 WORKERS
Article 45 (ex Article 39 TEC)
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
Article 45 TFEU (39 TEC)
Part II of the TFEU: ‘Non-discrimination and citizenship of the union’ provides a base of general principle in relation to discrimination in relation to nationality.
Extract from the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)2
Article 18 (ex Article 12 TEC)
Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination.
Article 45 TFEU (39 TEC) is said to represent an application, in the specific context of workers, of that general principle.
The ECJ has interpreted Article 45 (39 TEC) to go beyond merely prohibiting direct or indirect discrimination and has ruled that it applies to any obstacles which impede the free movement of workers. Craig and de Búrca discuss some of the cases which exemplify this expansive interpretation, such that Article 45 (39 TEC):
• Applied (in 1974)3 even where the work was done outside the EU so long as the legal relationship of employment was entered into within the EU;
• Applied (in 1996)4 to the employment relationship of a Member State national which was entered into and primarily performed in a nonmember country in which the national resided, at least as regards all aspects of the employment relationship which were governed by the legislation of the Member State;
• Applied to all bodies which had the power to make relevant rules, not just public authorities (Walraveand Koch):
18 The abolition as between Member States of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons and to freedom to provide services, which are fundamental objectives of […] the treaty, would be compromised if the abolition of barriers of national origin could be neutralized by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organizations which do not come under public law.
• Applied (‘horizontally’) ‘to conditions of employment fixed by private persons’ (Angonese5).
Article 46 TFEU (40 TEC) provides for the European Parliament and the Council, ‘acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, [to issue] directives or make regulations setting out the measures required to bring about freedom of movement for workers, as defined in’ that Article. Those that you will examine in detail in this module are
• Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely (freedom of movement for workers) within the territory of the Member States.6
• Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union.7
One of the main innovations of the 2004 Directive was to introduce the right of permanent residence for EU nationals and their families after 5 years of continuous legal residence in another Member State.
A key issue in all is this is the meaning of ‘a worker’, which was not defined in the legislation. The ECJ has insisted that
The definition of a ‘worker’ was a matter for EU law: i.e., there could not be different definitions in different Member States. (See Hoekstra.8) In this, the ECJ was claiming authority to define the meaning and scope of the term. However there is no single concept of ‘worker’ applicable to all EU law—the definition can vary depending on the EU law context in which it arises.
Using this authority, the ECJ has ruled that a ‘worker’ can include
A spouse employed by the other spouse;
Part-time workers, even where the part-time remuneration was less than the minimum level of subsistence in the State of residence;
Trainee workers, receiving minimal remuneration in return for their training;
Unpaid workers (in the conventional sense) where some kind of support was the quid pro quo for the work;
On-call contact workers, who have no guarantee of any particular quantity of work.
See Craig and de Búrca for particular cases and detailed discussion.
The ECJ has also ruled that Article 45 (39 TEC) can be relied on by
The ‘worker’ her or himself;
The employer; or
A relevant ‘third party’.
In general, the purpose for which the employment is undertaken will not be relevant to determining whether the person is a ‘worker’ under EU law. However, the ECJ has, in some cases, indicated that the purpose might be relevant either to who is deemed to be a worker or to the ‘social advantages’ (e.g., a maintenance grant) that can be claimed in the country of employment based on that prior employment. In this vein:
Work done as part of a drug rehabilitation programme under Dutch national law was deemed not to be ‘an effective and genuine economic activity’ (i.e., ‘work’) if it constitutes merely a means of rehabilitation or reintegration for the persons concerned’ and work is created solely for that purpose.9
By way of contrast, work done in a ‘re-integration’ setting that is ‘capable of being regarded as forming part of the normal labour market’ is not precluded from being considered ‘work’, and hence the person who did it is a ‘worker’.10
When ‘work’ is done with sole purpose in mind of preparing for a course of study, rather than for employment, even though the work was genuine and effective work, and therefore the person was a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 45 (39 TEC), the person may not be able to claim all of the advantages provided for workers within EU law (in this case a maintenance grant).11
The status of job-seekers has also been addressed by the ECJ:
In Antonissen the ECJ held that, while not having the full status of ‘worker’, those actively seeking work are al12so covered by Article 45 (39 TEC). However, Member States retain the power to expel a job-seeker who does not have prospects of finding work after a reasonable period of time, without needing to invoke one of the grounds of exception to the Article. Further, there may be provisions such as unemployment insurance, which cannot be claimed by a job-seeker who has never participated in the work force.
See Craig and de Búrca for further cases and detailed discussion.
Discrimination, market access and justification
Rules can be found to be in breach of Article 45 (39 TEC) in a number of ways.
Rules which directly discriminate on the grounds of nationality will be caught by Article 45 (39 TEC). While some cases still arise relating to direct discrimination with attempted justification on the grounds of ‘public policy, public security or public health’ (para 3) they raise a strong burden of justification (see Craig and de Búrca).
Rules which can also infringe upon the provisions of Article 45 (39 TEC) include those which indirectly discriminate on the grounds of nationality. This occurs where rules create a condition of eligibility for a benefit that is more easily satisfied by a national than a non-national, but the condition is either not essential or can be satisfied in other ways which are not discriminatory. Examples have included:
Benefits made conditional in law or fact, on place-of-residence, place-of-origin or place-of-education, with cases citing rules requiring military service in the area (Ugliola13); paying ‘away from home allowances’ only to nationals (Sotgui14); tax rules which treated nonresident spouses differently (Zurstrassen15); and rules making it harder for a non-national to get ‘retirement points’ (Commission v France16) all being found to be discriminatory.
The imposition of language requirements in excess of those which impose ‘conditions relating to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled.’17 However the ‘linguistic knowledge required’ might be greater than first thought from viewing a particular post. For instance, the ECJ ruled that a person teaching art in Ireland, almost exclusively in English, could still be required to pass an oral exam in Irish on account of a policy of the Irish government to maintain and promote the use of Irish as a means of expressing national identity and culture.18 The requirement could not limit the oral exam to only one form, one more available to locals than to others.
Rules which impose ‘double burden’ regulatory requirements, which do not recognise appropriate qualifications or certifications already received in the home State.
In terms of the burden of proof of indirect discrimination, the ECJ ruled in O’Flynn19 (which discussed the rules in relation to eligibility for a funeral grant) that:
21 It is not necessary in this respect to find that the provision in question does in practice affect a substantially higher proportion of migrant workers. It is sufficient that it is liable to have such an effect.
For more discussion on this section, see Craig and de Búrca.
Rules which neither directly nor indirectly discriminate on grounds of nationality, but nevertheless create obstacles to the employment market for some groups only.
The landmark case here is Bosman,20 which relates to the transfer system for national and transnational football associations. This case is discussed in detail in Craig and de Búrca. Note that the ruling in this case is criticised in this week’s reading.21
Provisions such as a national law concerning the payment of social contributions which could preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving her or his country of origin in order to exercise her or his free-movement rights, constitutes an obstacle to that freedom even if the provisions apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned (Terhoeve22).
Even rules related to the registration of cars that can be used by workers (e.g., no out-of-state registrations) may create an obstacle in this sense (Commission v Denmark23).
Limits to the idea of obstacles contravening Article 45 (39 TEC) have been said to exist, such that ‘neutral national rules could be regarded as material barriers only if it were established that they had actual effects on market actors akin to exclusion from the market’ (the AG in Graf, para. 32).24 Such limits have been illustrated by a range of cases including those concerning:
Rules providing that compensation on termination of employment did not apply when the worker voluntarily entered the employment to take up work elsewhere (Graf);
The negative tax consequences for an individual moving from one Member State to another (Weigel25).
Rules which do not infringe Article 45 (39 TEC) include those which:
Relate to a ‘wholly internal’ situation. These occur when a national is deprived of a right within his or her own State which workers from another State could claim there. In R v Saunders26 the ECJ was asked to consider this point:
2 This question has arisen within the context of criminal proceedings concerning in particular the consequences of infringement, by a person of British nationality who had pleaded guilty to a charge of theft at a previous stage in those proceedings, of an undertaking accepted by her to proceed to Northern Ireland and not to return to England or Wales within three years
3 The National Court, on the basis that the accused was a worker within the meaning of Article [45 (39 TEC)] of the Treaty, wishes to know whether the rules of the Treaty on freedom for workers prohibit measures in the nature of those by which the accused was bound.
The ECJ responded that:
12 The application by an authority or court of a Member State to a worker who is a national of that same State of measures which deprive or restrict the freedom of movement of that worker within the territory of that State as a penal measure provided for by national law by reason of acts committed within the territory of that State is a wholly domestic situation which falls outside of the scope of the rules contained in the Treaty on freedom of movement for workers. [Bold, italics added.]
The factual results of such ‘wholly internal’ situations can seem quite unjust (as pointed out in Craig and de Búrca), such that nationals may feel that ‘reverse discrimination’ is operating.
The possible grounds for justifying discrimination are broad and include the justifications set out in Article 45 (39 TEC) of the Treaty itself (public policy, public security or public health) and in secondary legislation (especially Directive 2004/38), but are not confined to those. See discussion in Craig and de Búrca.
Public service exemption
Article 45(4) TFEU [39(4) TEC] provides a limiting clause on the overall statement of freedom for workers within the union: ‘The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service’.
The ECJ’s approach to this limiting clause has been restrictive. It has endeavoured to ensure that the scope of the section does not go beyond what is necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was included in the Treaty. In Commission v Belgium,27 that purpose was addressed as follows:
10 That provision removes from the ambit of [Article 45(4) [39(4) TEC] (1) to (3) a series of posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designated to safeguard the general interests of the State or 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 form the foundation of the bond of nationality.
Accordingly,
Positions in State organisations will not automatically qualify as ‘public service’ employment for the purposes of this Article.
Some positions of employment by a private party (rather than a public body) may qualify as ‘public service’ employment for the purposes of this Article.28
To fall within the public service exemption, a position must both:
Involve participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law; and
Entail duties designed to safeguard the interests of the State.
Where positions entail a mix of duties (e.g., the master and chief mate of merchant ships flying under State flag), the duties related to an exercise of powers under public law (e.g., the exercise of police powers in case of danger aboard) must be in fact exercised on a regular basis, and not just a very minor part of their duties, for the position to be held to be a ‘public service’ position.29
There is no secondary legislation clarifying the ‘public service’ concept, but in 1988 the Commission published a document30 providing some guidance on the sorts of state functions that it thought would (or would not) fall within the provision. In 2002 it issued a further paper that built on that guidance:31
The Commission still considers (as stated in 1988) that the derogation in Article 39(4) EC [45(4) TFEU] covers specific functions of the State and similar bodies such as the armed forces, the police, and other forces of the maintenance of order, the judiciary, the tax authorities and the diplomatic corps. However, not all posts in these fields imply the exercise of public authority and responsibility of the safeguarding the general interests of the State; for example: administrative tasks; technical consultation; maintenance. These posts may therefore not be restricted to nationals of the host Member State.
In relation to posts in State ministries, regional government authorities, local authorities, central banks and other public bodies, which deal with the preparation of legal acts, their implementation, monitoring their application and the supervision of subordinate bodies, the Commission takes a stricter approach than it did in 1988. These functions were then described in a general way giving the impression that all posts linked to such activities were covered by the derogation of Article 39(4) EC [45(4) TFEU]. This would have allowed Member States to restrict nearly all posts (apart from administrative tasks, technical consultation and maintenance) to their nationals, a point of view which has to be re-examined in the light of the Court’s jurisprudence of the 1990’s. It is important to note that even if management and decision-making posts which involve the exercise of public authority and responsibility for safeguarding the general interests of the State may be restricted to nationals of the host Member State, this is not the case in relation to all jobs in the same field. For example, the post of an official who helps prepare decisions on granting planning permission should not be restricted to nationals of the host Member State.
The public service exception only permits (but does not require) a Member State to erect a barrier to non-nationals entering those positions which come within the definition of ‘public service’. Once that barrier has been passed and non-nationals have been admitted to public service positions within a Member State, it is quite clear that no discrimination must place between nationals and non-nationals in terms of their conditions of service.32
Relevant Directives
Extract from the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)33
TITLE IV CHAPTER 1 WORKERS
Article 46 (ex Article 40 TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives or make regulations setting out the measures required to bring about freedom of movement for workers, as defined in Article 45, in particular: [lists a range of measures] [Bold added]
Your textbook discusses two key directives in relation to freedom of movement for workers:
Directive 2004/3834 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Regulation 1612/6835 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
In 2002 the Commission noted that:
The right of residence goes hand in hand with the right to work in another Member State and Member States must grant migrant workers a residence permit as proof of the right of residence. The Commission still receives large numbers of complaints from citizens required to produce documents (such as tax returns, medical certificates, salary slips, electricity bills, etc.) other than those permitted under Community law (identity card or passport and proof of employment). Member States are not allowed to issue temporary permits, for which a fee is payable, before issuing a residence permit, a point upon which the Commission also receives complaints.The right to work is not conditional upon obtaining the residence permit. The Commission continues to receive complaints from citizens who are required to produce a residence permit before being allowed to start working, contrary to Community law.
In addition, the Commission has received numerous complaints from involuntarily unemployed workers who receive social assistance, and who find that the host Member State refuses to renew their residence permit and then threatens them with expulsion. If a five year residence permit has been renewed once, the Member State may not refuse to renew it again on grounds of involuntary unemployment, and therefore may also not expel a person in such circumstances. The Commission considers that workers whose fixed-term employment contract has come to an end should be categorised as involuntarily unemployed. Public policy reasons may not be invoked to justify such expulsions.36
In 2004 Directive 2004/38 replaced Directive 68/360 which had, pursuant to what is now Article 46 TFEU (40 TEC), originally facilitated freedom of movement of workers and clarified the formal requirements relating to the right of entry and residence of non-nationals. The new directive defined ‘family members’ in Articles 2 and 3:
2) “Family member” means:
(a) the spouse;
(b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State;
(c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b);
(d) the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b);
3) “Host Member State” means the Member State to which a Union citizen moves in order to exercise his/her right of free movement and residence.
Craig and de Búrca walk you through some of the Articles of this Directive and the relevant case law.
Another key piece of supplementary legislation, originally issued in 1968 and subsequently amended (including by Directive 2004/38), is Regulation 1612/68. Treaty Article 45 (39 TEC) confers on EU workers positive, substantive rights of freedom of movement and equality of treatment; rights ‘given flesh’ to some extent by Regulation 1612/68. Again, Craig and de Búrca walk you through some of the Articles of this Directive and the relevant case law. They point out that this regulation has provoked a good deal of litigation, and that Article 7 of the regulation ‘has probably been the most fruitful provision for workers and their families, raising interesting questions about when, if at all, Member States are entitled to treat their own nationals more favourably’ than other EU nationals.
Article 7 of Regulation 1612/68 provides:
A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment;
He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers.
He shall also, by virtue of the same right and under the same conditions as national workers, have access to training in vocational schools and retraining centres.
Any clause of a collective or individual agreement or of any other collective regulation concerning eligibility for employment, employment, remuneration and other conditions of work or dismissal shall be null and void in so far as it lays down or authorises discriminatory conditions in respect of workers who are nationals of the other Member States.
Read through these sections of your textbook carefully, as the issues are well laid out and clearly explained.
Restrictions
Article 45(3) [39(3) TEC] provides that the freedom of movement for workers within the EU entails certain rights ‘subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’.
Chapter 6, ‘Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’; Articles 27-33 of Directive 2004/38 govern these restrictions. These Articles repeal and replace the previous Directive 64/221 and incorporate much of the relevant jurisprudence of the ECJ.
These Articles cover:
Article 27 General principles
Article 28 Protection against expulsion
Article 29 Public health
Article 30 Notification of decisions
Article 31 Procedural safeguards
Article 32 Duration of exclusion orders
Article 33 Expulsion as a penalty or legal consequence.
Prior to reading Craig and de Búrca’s walkthrough of these Articles and the relevant case law, you may like to read the ‘plain English’ advice the Commission provides for EU citizens on its website in relation to these restrictions. The deal with ‘limitations and restrictions on the right to move and reside freely’:
On grounds of public policy or security, and
On grounds of public health.37
Note that this Directive makes clear, as did the previous directive, that the public policy, security and public health exceptions cannot be invoked to serve economic ends.
It is also made clear (at Article 27) that all measures adopted on grounds of public policy or security shall comply with the principle of proportionality—i.e., the measure cannot have any greater impact than is necessary to achieve the stated aim. The reading for this week38 focusses on the ‘rule of reason’ (i.e., proportionality) in relation to freedom of movement for workers as applied by the ECJ, Daniele ‘explores the possibility of choosing different solutions for cases involving workers, establishment or services and looks for inspiration at the case law on free movement of goods.’
With Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications the EU has reformed the system for recognition of professional qualifications, in order to help make labour markets more flexible, further liberalise the provision of services, encourage more automatic recognition of qualifications and simplify administrative procedures.
In summary
This week’s work has been designed to introduce you to the concept of the free movement of workers in the single market, how this was legally achieved and the restrictions which exist over such free movement.
Next week you will go on to explore the differences between the freedoms existing in the single market and will then embark on a review of Article 43 TEC (49 TFEU) and the establishment of companies in the single market.
Footnotes
1EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C83/65
2EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C 83/56
3Case 36/74 B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405 CELEX 61974J0036.
4Case C-214-94 Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [1996] ECR I-02253 CELEX 61994J0214.
5Case C-281/98 Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-04139 CELEX 61998J0281. In this case applicants were required to have a certain certificate stating they were bilingual in Italian and German, which locals normally had but which was difficult for others to obtain. The ECJ stated that
45 It follows that, where an employer makes a person’s admission to a recruitment competition subject to a requirement to provide evidence of his linguistic knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma, such as the Certificate, issued only in one particular province of a Member State, that requirement constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Article 48 [39 TEC, 45 TFEU] of the Treaty.
6CELEX 32004L0038.
7CELEX 31968R1612.
8Case 75-63 Mrs M.K.H. Hoekstra (née Unger) v Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel en Ambachten (Administration of the Industrial Board for Retail Trades and Businesses) [1964] ECR 177 CELEX 61963J0075.
9Case 344/87 I. Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1989] ECR 1621 CELEX 61987J0087.
10Case C-456/02 Michel Trojani v Centre Public d’aide Sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) [2004] ECR I-07573 CELEX 62002J0456.
11Case 197/86 Steven Malcolm Brown v The Secretary of State for Scotland [1988] ECR 3205 CELEX 61986J0197.
12Case C-292/89 The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen [1991] ECR I-00745 CELEX 61989J0292.
13Case 15/69 Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola [1969] ECR363 CELEX 61969J0015.
14Case 152-73 Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153 CELEX 61973J0152.
15Case C-87/99 Patrick Zurstrassen v Administration des contributions directes [2000] ECRI-03337 CELEX 61999J0087.
16Case C-35/97 Commission v French Republic [1998] ECR I-05325 CELEX 61997J0035. [Note that your textbook inadvertently refers to this case as Commission v Belgium.
17Article 3(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union CELEX 31968R1612.
18Case C-379/87 Anita Groener v Minister for Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee [1989] ECR 3967 CELEX 61987J0379.
19Case C-237/94 John O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-02617 CELEX 61994J0237.
20Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-04921 CELEX 61993J0415.
21L Daniele, ‘Non-Discriminatory Restrictions to the Free Movement of Persons’ (1997) 22 ELRev 191.
22Case C-18/95 F.C. Terhoeve v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland [1999] ECR I-00345 CELEX 61995J0018.
23Case C-464/02 Commission v Kingdom of Denmark [2005] ECR I-07929 CELEX 2002J0464.
24Case C-190/98 Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH [2000] ECR I-00493 CELEX 61998J0190.
25Case C-387/01 Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg [2004] ECR I-04981 CELEX 62001J0387.
26Case 175/78 The Queen v Vera Ann Saunders [1979] ECR 1129 CELEX 61978J0175.
27Case 149/79 Commission v Kingdom of Belgium [1982] ECR 1845 CELEX 61979J0149.
28Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v Administración del Estado [2003] ECR I-10391 CELEX 62001J0405.
29Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v Administración del Estado [2003] ECR I-10391 CELEX 62001J0405.
30Commission [1988] OJ C72/2.
31Commission, ‘Free Movement of Workers—Achieving the Full Benefits and Potential’ COM (2002) 694 final <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0694en01.pdf>
32Case 152-73 Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153 CELEX 61973J0152.
33EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C83/65.
34CELEX 32004L0038.
35CELEX 31968R1612.
36Commission, ‘Free Movement of Workers—Achieving the Full Benefits and Potential’ COM (2002) 694 final <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0694en01.pdf>. Note that the original document contains references which you can view online.
37Commission, ‘Freedom to Move and Live in Europe: A Guide to Your Rights as an EU Citizen’ (2010) 32 <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/guide_free_movement_low.pdf>.
38L Daniele, ‘Non-Discriminatory Restrictions to the Free Movement of Persons’ (1997) 22 ELRev 191.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂