Takto vyzera esej odborneho charakteru z Coventry University.
224 EC Law
LLB Law 2nd Year
The scenario involves three nationals of the European Community. Inese a national of Latvia and her mother who have moved to the U.K. and Inese’s internet boyfriend who is of Danish nationality and who moved to the U.K. some time before Inese. All of them have certain issues to be resolved involving rights under the free movement of persons, provisions of EC Law.
Latvia became a member of EC in May 2004. The general rule for nationals of Member States is that they have free movement within the Community. See Article 39
However, it is necessary to state that nationals from new Member States except
In Inese’s case as a national of
In Inese’s case as a part time worker she would have the same employment rights as nationals. She could not be deported on the grounds of earning a low salary or being only a part time worker. See Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie  ECR 1035. She would be entitled to certain benefits if she fulfilled the criteria laid down by the government. These criteria would be same for nationals. See Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68
It is necessary to bear in mind that as she has not been working in the
Under EC law, Member States are allowed to deny EC nationals rights of entry and residence only on the grounds of public policy, security and public health.
Inese was a member of neo-communist party that is not illegal under
In Van Dyun v Home Office  it was held that a national of a
Inese could be restricted to reside in certain parts of the
However, she could not be deported on the grounds of not having a residence permit. See Procereur du Roi v Royer  ECR 497
The court held in this case that a right of residence is a fundamental right of the Treaty under Article 39 and Regulation 64/221[Art.3 (3)] therefore a failure to produce a residence permit does not justify deportation.
Furthermore, Inese would not be able to claim a maintenance grant under Article 3 of Directive 93/96. If Inese had been resident legally in the
It is important to discuss tuition fees support. If Inese had started her course in 2005 she would have been entitled to tuition fees support if she fulfilled all requirements of the government under the current Student Support Regulations. If Inese had started in September 2006 she would be subject to the up to £ 3,000 variable fees. She would be eligible to apply for a loan for each academic year.
In the scenario Ole her boyfriend could not find a job for some time. The authorities wanted to deport him because he is not a worker. The question is whether Article 39(3a) that gives a right to accept offers of employment actually made includes jobseekers as “workers” or does not. According to Regulation 1408/71 it is possible for Ole to be awarded unemployment benefits for the period of 3 months. In R v IAT ex p. Antonissen  ECR I-745 the ECJ held that jobseekers could be workers. The ECJ has also made it clear that an EC national who was searching for work, was not the same as somebody who was actually working. The ECJ identified that there was a difference between a worker and a jobseeker. Member States have a little discretion to deport jobseekers who have not found work after a period of time.
In the Antonissen case the ECJ ruled that under the immigration law a jobseeker could be deported if he had not found a job after six months unless he provided evidence that he was continuing to seek employment and that he had a genuine chance of being engaged. Another issue to be resolved involves public service under Article 39(4) that states that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in public service. Ole was refused a job with the local council because he was not a national. Only nationals can perform certain jobs in a
Posts that may fall within Article 39(4) are night watchmen, architects, police officers, and even jobs involving the tax authorities and certain public bodies. According to the scenario, Ole was unskilled so there was a possibility that the local authority discriminated against him if he applied for a “non-official authority” job. Ole could be deported based on his personal conduct. This was discussed in Inese’s case supra. Ole was a member of the neo-communist party so his present membership could justify expulsion from the
Inese’s mother could be deported on the grounds of public health under Article 4(1) of Directive 64/221. This article states “Only diseases or disabilities justifying refusal of entry into a territory or refusal to issue a first residence permit shall be those listed into the Annex of this Directive.”
The annex includes profound mental disturbance among other diseases. However if the mother became mentally disturbed after she came to the
Another issue that needs to be resolved is whether Inese’s mother was entitled to special benefit to attend a mental health clinic. Under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 migrant workers should have the same social and tax advantages as nationals. This Article could not apply to the mother because she was not a worker in the
 Cf Textbook on EC Law per J.Steiner and L.Woods at page 94
 Cf Textbook on EC Law per supra at page 372
 Issues on this matter where discussed in person with the DFES EU Team
 Cf Textbook on EC Law per J.Steiner and L.Woods at pages 311 and 312
 Cf Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005/2006 at page 11
 Cf Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005/2006 at page 224
 CF Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005/06 at page 224
Tato esej je majetkom P.Ratajovej. Nekopirovat, prosim!!! Nepublikovat bez mojho vedomia. Dakujem.