|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Antonissen (1989)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
C-292/89. The applicant was a Belgian national who had entered the UK to
look for work -- an endeavour in which he had not been successful. The
UK authorities sought to deport him after he was convicted of drugs-related
criminal offence. The applicant relied on Art. 39 of the ECTreaty
which sets out to protect the FreeMovementOfWorkers. The UK, however, argued
that the claimant, being unemployed, was not a worker and therefore not
entitled to the protection of Art. 39.
The ECJ adopted a very purposive reading of Art. 39. While it was
true, it was conceded, that Art. 39 did not specifically address the
status of those seeking work, the provisions of the Treaty would be
seriously hindered if free movement only applied to those who already
had offers of employment in other member states. It followed that
Art. 39 had to extend protection to people who were unemployed and
actively seeking work, such as the claimant.
The UK argued that it was unreasonable to expect a member state to host
a non-national indefinitely while he sought employment, and that a period
of three months would be reasonable. The ECJ preferred a period of six
months, but added that if a person could prove at the end of that time
that he still had a good chance of finding work, it would be unacceptable
for the state to deport him.
However, the ECJ did point out that an unemployed person would not necessarily
be entitled to the full package of rights guaranteed by the Treaty.
CaseLaw
EULaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|