The Law of the European Union Assignment Essay Example

Member State has the right to look for a job in another Member State.He or she will receive from the national employment offices the same assistance as nationals of the host Member State. 3 According to the European Court of Justice, the jobseeker may stay in the host Member state for a period "sufficient to enable him to appraise himself of offers of employment and to take the necessary steps to be engaged".

After expiry of such period, he cannot be expelled if he proves that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged.This whilst valid is not entirely applicable given the fact there her current intention is simple, that she aims to reconcile her relationship with Alonso who is residing and working in Germany. This then falls within the scope of the EC directive 2004/38 which extends the freedom of movement provision to workers' 'family members' which under article 2(2) of said directive clearly states that a 'family member means: (a) the spouse'4 which the ECJ have held in the case of Netherlands v Reed5 that 'the term "spouse" refers to a marital relationship only'.This is important because whilst they are separated but no yet divorced she had not yet lost her status as a member of his family which is emphasised by Diatta v Land Berlin. 6 There is however other articles which could be applied such as article 5; Rights of Entry7 which states that a member state must grant to all Union citizens the right to enter their territory with a valid ID card or passport, and article 6; The Right of Residence8 for

up to three months.

This states that a Union citizen shall have the right of residence for a period of up to 3 months without any conditions or formalities other than the necessity, like in article 5, to simply hold a passport or valid ID card. However there are restrictions under Article 14: retention of residence9, which can refuse residence if a citizen becomes an unreasonable burden upon the social assistance system of the state. One must question the nature of Bella's offence and in particular look to the word 'minor' however this is a matter of national law discretion.In UK law the immigration policy of those with previous convictions is that 'refusal of leave of entry should normally follow unless admission is justified for strongly compassionate reasons'10 The European Commission have clarified their position on this by explicitly stating that 'Previous criminal convictions in themselves do not constitute grounds for restricting the right to move and reside freely.

'11 They feel that expulsion is a very harsh interference with a person's life. However it all relies on a matter of public policy within the German legal framework as the case of Commission v Spain12 highlights as E.U law 'enables member states to prohibit nationals of other member states or their spouses who are national of third countries from entering their territory on grounds of public policy. '13 If Germany have in fact achieved what the Treaties set out to do by forming common policies with other member states then adopting an approach as above in UK law then Bella should be allowed for compassionate reasons, not to mention the fact that her offence hardly constitutes

a matter of National Security. David like his mother satisfies article 17 which outlines the regulations as to who qualifies as an E.U citizen and also satisfies some of the aforementioned points as they are applicable to his situation.

David in fact holds dual citizenship as he is both an English and Italian national both of which are Member states. As Art 39(2) states that an E. U citizen cannot be discriminated against in terms of nationality. David although a minor went out to work in Greece to supplement their income whilst he and his mother resided there together, he has done for several months and one can only assume in excess of 3 months.

It would be of paramount importance to assess the legitimacy, validity and proportionality of what the authorities have done. With this borne in mind one must first decipher what and who qualifies as a worker. This is where case law must be looked at as Art. 39 does not define a `worker. ' The ECJ has taken a broad view of the term as; in Lawrie Blum14 it defined worker as ``a person [who] performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.

' This is the same definition for all member states, otherwise member states could define it in away to prevent migrant workers in favour of their own. 15 Part-time work also falls within the scope of the word 'worker' as the ECJ held in Levin16in which the court found in favour of Mrs Levin as they held that 'whether or not a person was a worker was not a question

a question of how much money they earned but whether or not it was 'genuine'. ' Therefore using this test one can simply look at what David is doing, and assess whether it satisfies this test.The ECJ came to the decision that part time work provided a benefit to both the individual's living standards and the member states economy, so should not be excluded, if it meets this test: 'The rules of freedom of movement for 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 purely marginal and ancillary. '17 He has been working to supplement whilst his mother was there and is continuing to do so now he is alone.

Also the fact that if a worker need to supplement his income in order to subsist it is irrelevant as Kempf18held. This is likely to be the case that he would need assistance from the government as he is on residing on his own although this is not specified. What the treaty does state however is that once residence has been granted continued residence is eventually dependent on the entrant becoming economically self-sufficient as member states are not actually required to support burdens on their welfare systems indefinitely.David, using the test in Levin satisfies E.

U worker status and as mentioned is working to improve living conditions, become self-sufficient and is of benefit to their economy. Under art. 14 which clearly outlines when a Union citizen can be refused residence is when the individual becomes an 'unreasonable burden on the social assistance of the host member state'19 David he

is not a burden as he is clearly just trying to make a living.With regards to the permit under the Directive 2004/38 where a worker is employed for a period exceeding three months but not exceeding one year, the host State must issue him with a temporary residence permit whose validity may be limited to the expected duration of the employment. On the basis he should be granted a temporary permit at the very least whilst as he continues in his aim to become self-sufficient.