Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free Movement of Workers and Union Citizens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Social Services of General Interest in the EU

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

Abstract

This contribution seeks to offer some insights into the changing nature of the relationship between EU and Member State competences, with regards to the provision of SSGIs. In particular, it will consider how the provisions on the free movement of workers and the, more recently added, citizenship provisions of the Treaty, impose constraints on the Member States’ autonomy with regards to the provision of such services. The essay will focus on two specific types of SSGIs that are still, mainly, provided by the State (education and the provision of a social assistance system) and will explore how the CJEU has responded to the tension between the aims of the free movement of workers and the citizenship provisions, on the one hand, and the autonomy of the Member States in these fields, on the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Szyszczak 2001, p. 36.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, the recent discussion in the United Kingdom concerning the cuts in the grants paid to higher education institutions and the corresponding increase in tuition fees.

  3. 3.

    For a further explanation of the term ‘SSGIs’, see Chap. 9 by Neergaard in this collection of essays.

  4. 4.

    Another term used for SGEIs and SGIs is ‘public services’—see CJEU, Case C-18/88 GB-Inno [1991] ECR I-5980, para 22; CJEU, Case C-393/92 Almelo [1994] ECR I-1520, paras 47 and 49; Behrens 2001, pp. 472–473. Note, however, that the Commission has refrained from using that term as a synonym for any of the above terms —see Commission, Green Paper on Services of General Interest, COM(2003) 270 final, 25 May 2003, para 19. Also, commentators who have made use of this term as another label for SG(E)Is have recognised that the terms are not ‘co-extensive’—see, for example, Ross 2004, p. 489.

  5. 5.

    For an article on the ‘growing Europeanisation of the public utilities legal order’ see Napolitano 2005.

  6. 6.

    Commission, Communication from the Commission, Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Social Services of General Interest in the European Union, COM (2006) 177 final, 26 April 2006.

  7. 7.

    Commission, Report to the Laeken European Council, Services of General Interest, COM(2001) 598, 17 October 2011, para 1(3). For a further explanation of market failure in this context see Commission, Communication from the Commission, Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(1996) 443 final, 11 September 1996, p. 5.

  8. 8.

    COM(2001) 598, para 2(7).

  9. 9.

    Ross 2004, p. 304.

  10. 10.

    Note, however, that if a specific SSGI is found not to be an ‘economic service’ because it is not provided for remuneration as this was defined in CJEU, Case C-263/86 Humbel [1988] ECR 5365, para 17, then Article 56 TFEU does not apply and any impediment to its provision across borders is not prohibited by that provision.

  11. 11.

    Barnard 2008, p. 4.

  12. 12.

    Neergaard and Nielsen 2010, p. 456.

  13. 13.

    As explained by Szyszczak ‘[t]here are no criteria as to the quality of welfare benefits provided within a Member State, with the Citizen acting as a market or consumer citizen making a choice. There are no safeguards against “levelling down” when a Member State feels threatened by an influx of “welfare tourists” and decides to lower or withdraw a welfare benefit’. Szyszczak 2009, p. 285.

  14. 14.

    CJEU, Case C-40/05 Lyyski [2007] ECR I-99, para 39.

  15. 15.

    See CJEU, Case C-73/08 Bressol [2010] ECR I-2735, para 28; CJEU, Joined Cases C-11 & 12/06 Morgan and Bucher [2007] ECR I-9161, para 24; CJEU, Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289, para 25; CJEU, Case C-308/89 Di Leo [1990] ECR I-4185, paras 14–15. This is the same approach that has been adopted in other areas which are, also, reserved for the Member States and for which the EU (if at all) has only supportive competence. See, for instance, criminal law and direct taxation and the relevant case-law: CJEU, Case C-348/96 Calfa [1999] ECR I-11 and CJEU, Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225, respectively.

  16. 16.

    Opinion of AG Stix-Hackl of 21 September 2006 in CJEU, Case C-76/05 Schwarz [2007] ECR I-6853, para 4, and CJEU, Case C-318/05 Commission v. Germany [2007] ECR I-6957, para 4.

  17. 17.

    CJEU, Case C-263/86 Humbel [1988] ECR 5365, para 18. See, also, more recently CJEU, Case C-76/05 Schwarz [2007] ECR I-6879, para 40: ‘Note, however, that [c]ourses given by educational establishments essentially financed by private funds, notably by students and their parents, constitute services within the meaning of Article [57 TFEU], since the aim of those establishments is to offer a service for remuneration’. See Ibid. para 40; CJEU, Case C-109/92 Wirth [1993] ECR I-6447, para 17; CJEU, Case C-56/09 Zanotti, [2010] ECR I-4517, paras 31–33.

  18. 18.

    CJEU, Case C-263/86 Humbel [1988] ECR 5365.

  19. 19.

    CJEU, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593, para 25; CJEU, Case C-65/03 Commission v. Belgium [2004] ECR I-6427, para 25; CJEU, Case C-147/03 Commission v. Austria [2005] ECR I-5969, para 32; CJEU, Case C-295/90 (European) Parliament v. Council [1992] ECR I-4193, para 15; CJEU, Case 24/86 Blaizot [1988] ECR 379, para 11; CJEU, Case 42/87 Commission v. Belgium [1988] ECR 5445, para 7; CJEU, Case C-40/05 Lyyski [2007] ECR I-99, para 28.

  20. 20.

    CJEU, Case 24/86 Blaizot [1988] ECR 379, paras 15–20; CJEU, Case 42/87 Commission v. Belgium [1988] ECR 5445, paras 7–8; CJEU, Case C-147/03 Commission v. Austria [2005] ECR I-5969, para 33.

  21. 21.

    Council Regulation No. 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on Freedom of Movement for Workers within the Community, OJ 1968 L 257/2. For more on this see Lonbay 1989, p. 376. See, also, Article 7(3) of the same Regulation. Note that, although in the context of freedom of establishment, there is no equivalent provision, the Court interpreted the relevant provision of the Treaty (Article 49 TFEU) as covering such advantages—see CJEU, Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289.

  22. 22.

    CJEU, Case 94/84 Deak [1985] ECR 1873, para 22; CJEU, Case C-7/94 Gaal [1995] ECR I-1031.

  23. 23.

    CJEU, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593.

  24. 24.

    CJEU, Case C-357/89 Raulin [1992] ECR I-1027, para 34; CJEU, Case C-295/90 European Parliament v. Council [1992] ECR I-4193, para 15. This was initially enshrined in Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the Right of Residence for Students, OJ 1993 L 317/59 and is now provided in Article 7(1)(c) of 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 Amending Regulation No. 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ 2004 L 158/77.

  25. 25.

    CJEU, Case C-73/08 Bressol [2010] ECR I-2735, para 29.

  26. 26.

    CJEU, Case C-147/03 Commission v. Austria [2005] ECR I-5969 and CJEU, Case C-65/03 Commission v. Belgium [2004] ECR I-6427.

  27. 27.

    CJEU, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593. Note that this was, actually, held by the Court in its judgment in the earlier case of Forcheri (CJEU, Case 152/82 Forcheri [1983] ECR 2323), however, that judgment could not be considered a clear authority for this proposition since the Court’s reference appeared to place reliance on the fact that Ms Forcheri was the wife of a migrant worker.

  28. 28.

    CJEU, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593, para 3.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. para 5.

  30. 30.

    Ibid. para 19.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. para 25.

  32. 32.

    Ibid. para 24.

  33. 33.

    CJEU, Case 235/87 Matteucci [1988] ECR 5589, paras 11 and 16; CJEU, Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, paras 23–24; CJEU, Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, para 25; CJEU, Case C-3/90 Bernini [1992] ECR I-1071, para 20.

  34. 34.

    CJEU, Case 9/74 Casagrande [1974] ECR 773, para 9; Joined Cases 389–390/87 Echternach and Moritz [1989] ECR 723; CJEU, Case C-308/89 Di Leo [1990] ECR I-4185.

  35. 35.

    CJEU, Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161; CJEU, Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205. For a criticism of this distinction see O’Leary 1997, p. 121, para 6.23; Gori 1999.

  36. 36.

    CJEU, Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, para 15; CJEU, Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, para 18.

  37. 37.

    CJEU, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. para 34.

  39. 39.

    Ibid. para 35.

  40. 40.

    Ibid. para 36.

  41. 41.

    CJEU, Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 38.

  42. 42.

    Ibid. para 39.

  43. 43.

    Ibid. para 42; CJEU, Case C-158/07 Förster [2008] ECR I-8507, para 41.

  44. 44.

    CJEU, Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 56.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. para 57.

  46. 46.

    CJEU, Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, para 67; CJEU, Case C-22/08 Vatsouras [2009] ECR I-4585, para 38; CJEU, Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191, para 38; CJEU, Case C-258/04 Ioannidis [2005] ECR I-8275, para 30. In Bidar, however, the Court expressly noted that requiring such a link in this instance would be inappropriate, ‘since the knowledge acquired by a student in the course of his higher education does not in general assign him to a particular geographical employment market’ (see CJEU, Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 58).

  47. 47.

    CJEU, Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, para 59.

  48. 48.

    Ibid. para 61.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, Case C-158/07 Förster [2008] ECR I-8507. Note that although the judgment was delivered after the 2004 Directive came into force (and even after its date of implementation had passed), the latter was not yet applicable to the facts of the case. Yet, the Court was clearly influenced by Article 24 of the 2004 Directive—see para 55 of the judgment.

  50. 50.

    See, inter alia, O’Leary 2009. For a rather more positive view on the judgment see Golynker 2009.

  51. 51.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-11 & 12/06 Morgan and Bucher [2007] ECR I-9161.

  52. 52.

    Ibid. para 28.

  53. 53.

    CJEU, Case C-76/05 Schwarz [2007] ECR I-6853.

  54. 54.

    As very rightly explained by Dougan 2005, p. 944, EU law ‘plays an important role in apportioning responsibility for covering the relevant costs [of migrant studies] between three main actors: the host State, the home State, and the student him/herself’.

  55. 55.

    Damjanovic and de Witte 2009, p. 55.

  56. 56.

    Dougan 2009, pp. 152–153.

  57. 57.

    Ibid. pp. 154–157.

  58. 58.

    Boeger appears to be of the view that it is still, in essence, nationality that determines who belongs to the society of a Member States (its ‘demos’) and that the EU’s interference in the ‘development of social programmes’ is confined to a requirement that the interests of nationals of other Member States are represented within national political processes. Boeger 2007, pp. 323–324.

  59. 59.

    Dougan 2005, p. 945.

  60. 60.

    CJEU, Case 207/78 Even [1979] ECR 2019, para 22.

  61. 61.

    For an analysis see O’Keeffe 1985; Steiner 1985. See, for instance, CJEU, Case 65/81 Reina [1982] ECR 33; CJEU, Case 32/75 Fiorini (neé Cristini) [1975] ECR 1085.

  62. 62.

    CJEU, Case 139/85 Kempf [1986] ECR 1741.

  63. 63.

    See, for instance, CJEU, Case 186/87 Cowan [1989] ECR 195. See, also, more recently CJEU, Case C-164/07 Wood [2008] ECR I-4143. Note that in both cases the Court used the market freedoms (free movement of services in the former and freedom of establishment or free movement of workers in the latter) in order to bring the applicant within the scope of the Treaties but it considered whether there was a violation of Article 18 TFEU rather than the prohibition of discrimination under the relevant market freedom. Possibly, this is due to the fact that the contested refusal to grant the said social assistance benefit would be incapable of impeding the exercise of the relevant freedom.

  64. 64.

    For an explanation see Damjanovic and de Witte 2009, pp. 71–73.

  65. 65.

    CJEU, Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-269.

  66. 66.

    For more on this case see Closa Montero 2010.

  67. 67.

    These conditions were, at the time, provided in the 1990 Residence Directives (Directive 93/96/EEC; Council Directive 90/364 of 28 June 1990 on the Right of Residence, OJ 1990 L180/26; Council Directive 90/365 of 28 June 1990 on the Right of Residence for Employees and Self-Employed Persons Who Have Ceased Their Occupational Activity, OJ 1990 L 180/28) and are now provided in Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

  68. 68.

    CJEU, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 42.

  69. 69.

    Ibid. para 43; CJEU, Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, para 45; CJEU, Case C-408/03 Commission v. Belgium [2006] ECR I-2647, paras 66–69. This is now enshrined in Article 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

  70. 70.

    CJEU, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 44.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    CJEU, Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573.

  73. 73.

    CJEU, Case C-224/98 D'Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191. See, also, subsequently, CJEU, Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas [2006] ECR I-451; CJEU, Case C-221/07 Zablocka [2008] ECR I-9029; CJEU, Case C-499/06 Nerkowska [2008] ECR I-3993.

  74. 74.

    CJEU, Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, para 84; see, also, CJEU, Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, para 31.

  75. 75.

    CJEU, Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, para 91; CJEU, Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, para 34.

  76. 76.

    For more on this see Dougan and Spaventa 2003.

  77. 77.

    For more on this see Somek 2007, pp. 790–791.

  78. 78.

    White 2010, p. 1579.

  79. 79.

    See also, Ross 2004, p. 314.

  80. 80.

    For more on this see Dougan 2009.

References

  • Barnard C (2008) Employment rights, Free movement under the EC Treaty and the Services Directive, Europa Institute Mitchell Working Paper Series, Paper 5/2008. Available at http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/file_download/series/44_employmentrightsfreemovementundertheectreatyandtheservicesdirective.pdf

  • Behrens P (2001) Public services and the internal market—an analysis of the Commission’s communication on services of general interest in Europe. Eur Bus Organ L Rev 2:469

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeger N (2007) Solidarity and EC competition law. Eur L Rev 32:319

    Google Scholar 

  • Closa Montero C (2010) Martínez Sala and Baumbast: an institutionalist analysis. In: Poiares Maduro M and Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law: the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Damjanovic D, de Witte B (2009) Welfare integration through EU law: the overall picture in the light of the Lisbon Treaty. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry L (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M, Spaventa E (2003) Educating Rudy and the (non-)English patient: a double-bill on residency rights under article 18 EC. Eur L Rev 28:699

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2005) Fees, grants, loans and dole cheques: who covers the costs of migrant education within the EU? Common Mark L Rev 42:943

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2009) The spatial restructuring of national welfare states within the European Union: the contribution of union citizenship and the relevance of the Treaty of Lisbon. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry L (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Golynker O (2009) Annotation of Förster. Common Mark L Rev 46:2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Gori G (1999) Union citizenship and equal treatment: a way of improving community educational rights? J Soc Welf Fam L 21:405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonbay J (1989) Education and law: the community context. Eur L Rev 14:363

    Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano G (2005) Towards a European legal order for services of general economic interest. Eur Pub L 11:565

    Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard U, Nielsen R (2010) Blurring boundaries: from the Danish welfare state to the European social model? Eur Labour L J 1:434

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe D (1985) Equal rights for migrants: the concept of social advantages in article 7(2), regulation 1612/68. Yearb Eur L 5:93

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary S (1997) The principle of equal treatment on grounds of nationality in article 6 EC, A lucrative source of rights for member state nationals? In: Dashwood A, O’Leary S (eds) The principle of equal treatment in EC law. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary S (2009) Equal treatment of and EU citizens: a new chapter on cross-border educational mobility and access to student financial assistance. Eur L Rev 34:612

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2004) The europeanization of public services supervision: harnessing competition and citizenship? Yearb Eur L 23:489

    Google Scholar 

  • Somek A (2007) Solidarity decomposed: being and time in European citizenship. Eur L Rev 32:787

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner J (1985) The right to welfare: equality and equity under community law. Eur L Rev 10:21

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2001) Public service provision in competitive markets. Yearb Eur L 20:35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2009) Legal tools in the liberalisation of welfare markets. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry L (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law—from Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • White RCA (2010) Revisiting free movement of workers. Fordham Int L J 33:1564

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Foxhill House, Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 7BA, UK

    Alina Tryfonidou

Authors
  1. Alina Tryfonidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alina Tryfonidou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Studiestræde 6, Copenhagen K, 1455, Denmark

    Ulla Neergaard

  2. , School of Law, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom

    Erika Szyszczak

  3. , Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Comeniuslaan 4, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, Netherlands

    Johan Willem van de Gronden

  4. , Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schillerstraße 1, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the editors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tryfonidou, A. (2013). Free Movement of Workers and Union Citizens. In: Neergaard, U., Szyszczak, E., van de Gronden, J., Krajewski, M. (eds) Social Services of General Interest in the EU. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-876-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation