Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free Movement of Persons

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of EEA Law

Abstract

The right to free movement of persons set out in Articles 28 and 31 EEA is a fundamental freedom that has always been considered to be one of the most significant elements of European integration. The movement of persons has historically been subject to more extensive regulation than the other fundamental freedoms of the EEA Agreement. The most important conditions regarding status of mobile persons within the EEA are now set out in Directive 2004/38. Pursuant to this Directive, those who are present in the labour market or have sufficient financial means to support themselves, are accorded relatively strong rights under the EEA Agreement, whereas those do who not benefit to a lesser degree.

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
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information. Accessed 22 June 2015. It should be noted that Croatia, which joined the EU on 1 July 2013, is not included in this data.

  2. 2.

    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 (EEC) 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, p. 77). The Directive was incorporated into Annex V to the EEA Agreement at point 1 and Annex VIII at point 3 by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 158/2007 of 7 December 2007 (‘Joint Committee Decision’) (OJ 2008 L 124, p. 20, and EEA Supplement No 26, 8.5.2008, p. 17).

  3. 3.

    Formerly Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Case C-333/13 Dano, judgment of 11 November 2014, published electronically.

  5. 5.

    See, inter alia, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, paragraph 26; Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08 Vatsouras and Koupatantze 120091 ECR I-4585, paragraph 26; and Case C-46/12. L.N., cited above, paragraph 40.

  6. 6.

    See Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paragraph 15.

  7. 7.

    See Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035; Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach [1989] ECR 723.

  8. 8.

    See Case C-413/01 Ninno-Orasche [2003] ECR I-1387, paragraph 24 and case-law cited.

  9. 9.

    See Ninno-Orasche, cited above, paragraph 27.

  10. 10.

    See, Lawrie-Blum, cited above, paragraph 20.

  11. 11.

    See Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 23 and Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR-I 9607, paragraph 55.

  12. 12.

    See Case 196/87 Steymann [1987] ECR 6159, paragraphs 14–16.

  13. 13.

    See Trojani, cited above, paragraph 20.

  14. 14.

    Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, paragraph 21; Case C-3/90 Bernini [1990] ECR I-1071, paragraph 14, and Trojani, cited above, paragraph 22.

  15. 15.

    See Case 53/81 Levin, cited above, paragraph 17; Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289, paragraph 14, and C-413/01 Ninno-Orasche [2003] ECR I-1387, paragraph 24.

  16. 16.

    See, to that effect, Ninni Orasche, cited above, paragraph 36, and case-law cited.

  17. 17.

    See Case 139/85 Kempf [1986] ECR 1741, paragraph 14; Case 344/87 Bettray [1989] ECR 1621, paragraph 15; and Case C-10/05 Mattern and Cikotic [2006] ECR I-3145, paragraph 22.

  18. 18.

    See Levin cited above, paragraphs 15 and 16.

  19. 19.

    See Case C-102/88 Ruzius-Wilbrink [1989] ECR 4311, paragraphs 7 and 17.

  20. 20.

    See Case 139/85 Kempf [1986] ECR 1741, paragraphs 2 and 16.

  21. 21.

    See Cases 171/88 Rinner-Kuehn [1989] ECR 2743, paragraph 16, C-444/93 Megner and Scheffel [1995] ECR I-4741, paragraph 18 and Case C-213/05 Geven [2007] ECR I-6347, paragraph 27.

  22. 22.

    See Case C-14/09 Genc [2010] ECR I-931, paragraph 21.

  23. 23.

    Case C-357/89 Raulin [1992] ECR I-1027, paragraph 14.

  24. 24.

    Compare Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 16.

  25. 25.

    Compare Antonissen, cited above, paragraph 21.

  26. 26.

    See, to that effect, Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, paragraphs 29–36; Case C-57/96 Meints [1997] ECR I-6689; Case C-35/97 Commission v. France [1998] ECR I-5325, and Case C-228/07 Petersen [2008] ECR I-6989, paragraph 49 and case-law cited.

  27. 27.

    See Article 7(3) Directive 2004/38.

  28. 28.

    See Joined Cases C-424/10 and C-425/10 Ziolkowski and Szeja, judgment of 21 December 2011, published electronically, paragraph 32.

  29. 29.

    In this regard, notice may be taken of Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark, judgment of 11 April 2013, reported electronically, as regards the EU framework equality Directive (Directive 2000/78 (OJ 2000 L 303 p. 13), which defines disability (as distinct from illness) as a ‘long-term’ condition), and of, in the context of the EU’s Staff Regulations, Case C-198/07 P Donal Gordon [2008] ECR I-10701. See Guild et al. (2014), p. 137.

  30. 30.

    Compare Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix, judgment of 19 June 2014, published electronically, paragraphs 28–30.

  31. 31.

    Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, paragraphs 30–33.

  32. 32.

    In Case C-344/95 Commission v. Belgium [1997] ECR I-1035, paragraph 18, a Belgian provision requiring a first time job-seeker to leave the state automatically on the expiry of a 3-month period was found to be in violation of Article 28 EEA.

  33. 33.

    Joined Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01 Orfanopoulos and Oliveri [2004] ECR I-5257, paragraph 50 and case-law cited.

  34. 34.

    Case C-473/93 Commission v. Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-3207, paragraph 27.

  35. 35.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 5 June 2014 in Case C-270/13 Haralambidis, published electronically, point 37, and case-law cited.

  36. 36.

    Case 307/84 Commission v. France [1986] ECR 1725, paragraph 12 and Case C-473/93 Commission v. Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-3207, paragraph 28.

  37. 37.

    Case C-225/09 Jakubowska, judgment of 2 December 2010, published electronically, paragraph 34, and case-law cited.

  38. 38.

    See Commission notice on the exception in Article 45(4) TFEU.

  39. 39.

    Case 225/85 Commission v. Italy [1987] ECR 2625, paragraph 9.

  40. 40.

    Case C-47/02 Anker [2003] ECR I-10447, paragraph 63.

  41. 41.

    Prior to the enactment of Directive 73/148 the rights of family members to work and be educated were exclusively limited to spouses and children of workers. With the directive, working rights were extended to spouses of the self-employed and educational rights to their children.

  42. 42.

    Joined Case E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred Olsen and Others, judgment of 9 July 2014, published electronically, paragraph 93, and Case E-1/09 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46, paragraph 28, and case-law cited.

  43. 43.

    Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraphs 97–98.

  44. 44.

    Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 27.

  45. 45.

    Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraph 101.

  46. 46.

    See, inter alia, Joined Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08 Rindal and Slinning [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 259.

  47. 47.

    See, inter alia, Case 25/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377.

  48. 48.

    See, inter alia, Case C-60/03 Wolf and Müller [2004] ECR-I 9553.

  49. 49.

    See Cases E-2/11 STX Norway and Others [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, and E-12/10 ESA v. Iceland [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117.

  50. 50.

    The Directive was incorporated into Annex V to the EEA Agreement at point 1 and Annex VIII at point 3 by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 158/2007 of 7 December 2007 (‘Joint Committee Decision’) (OJ 2008 L 124, p. 20, and EEA Supplement No 26, 8.5.2008, p. 17).

  51. 51.

    Article 7 Directive 2004/38.

  52. 52.

    Case E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 216, paragraph 33.

  53. 53.

    Article 6 Directive 2004/38. This right to travel between EEA States, regardless of any specific or stated purpose, was originally conferred by Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180 p. 26).

  54. 54.

    Article 24(2) Directive 2004/38.

  55. 55.

    Article 7 Directive 2004/38.

  56. 56.

    Article 7(1)(c) Directive 2004/38.

  57. 57.

    Article 4 Directive 2004/38. If the family member is not national of an EEA State (a third-country national) he/or she may be required to have an entry visa under the provisions of national or international law, unless the family member has a document proofing his/her right to establish him/herself in one of the EEA State with a family member who is an EEA national. Under Article 2(2) of the Directive ‘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).

  58. 58.

    Article 5 Directive 2004/38.

  59. 59.

    Article 5(4) Directive 2004/38. The provision entails a codification of case-law, cf. Case C-459/99 MRAX [2002] ECR I-6591.

  60. 60.

    Case E-15/12 Wahl [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep 534.

  61. 61.

    Article 6 Directive 2004/38.

  62. 62.

    Article 24(2) Directive 2004/38.

  63. 63.

    Article 14(1) Directive 2004/38.

  64. 64.

    Article 7(1)(b) Directive 2004/38.

  65. 65.

    Article 8(4) Directive 2004/38.

  66. 66.

    See Clauder, cited above, paragraph 34.

  67. 67.

    Case C-200/02 Zu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, paragraphs 29–33.

  68. 68.

    Case C-408/03 Commission v. Belgium [2006] ECR I-2647, paragraphs 40–42.

  69. 69.

    See to that effect, Joined Cases C-424/10 and C-425/10 Ziolkowski and Szeja [2011], published electronically, paragraph 40. For comparison, concerning a substantively identical provision in Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, see also Case C-578/08 Chakroun [2010] ECR I-1839, paragraph 46.

  70. 70.

    See, by analogy, Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 90; Zhu and Chen, cited above, paragraph 32; and Case C-408/03 Commission v. Belgium, cited above, paragraphs 37 and 41.

  71. 71.

    Case 140/12 Brey [2013], judgment of 19 September 2013, published electronically, paragraph 60, and case-law cited.

  72. 72.

    Dano, cited above, paragraph 63 and Brey, cited above, paragraph 61 and case-law cited.

  73. 73.

    Brey, cited above, paragraphs 63–64.

  74. 74.

    Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 93.

  75. 75.

    Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593, paragraph 30.

  76. 76.

    Case C-424/98 Commission v. Italy [2000] ECR I-4001.

  77. 77.

    Article 16 Directive 2004/38.

  78. 78.

    Article 16 (3) Directive 2004/38.

  79. 79.

    Article 16(4) Directive 2004/38.

  80. 80.

    Article 28(2) Directive 2004/38.

  81. 81.

    Article 17 Directive 2004/38.

  82. 82.

    Article 17(1)(b) Directive 2004/38.

  83. 83.

    Article 17(1), second subparagraph.

  84. 84.

    Case E-4/11 Clauder, [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 216.

  85. 85.

    Clauder, cited above, paragraphs 47–48.

  86. 86.

    Clauder, cited above, paragraph 46.

  87. 87.

    See Article 2(2) Directive 2004/38.

  88. 88.

    C-277/99 Kaske [2002] ECR I-1261.

  89. 89.

    See, inter alia, Case C-419 Scholz [1994] ECR I-505, paragraph 9; Case C-443/93 Vougioukas [1995] ECR I-4033, paragraph 38.

  90. 90.

    See Scholz, cited above, paragraph 9.

  91. 91.

    Compare Cases C-332/90 Steen [1992] ECR I-341, paragraph 9; C-134/95 USSL No 47 di Biella v. INAIL [1997] ECR I-195, paragraph 19; Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 Uecker and Jacquet [1997] ECR I-3171, paragraph 16; and Joined Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95 Kapasakalis and Others [1998] ECRI-0000, paragraph 2.

  92. 92.

    Case 175/78 Saunders [1979] ECR 1129, paragraph 12.

  93. 93.

    Compare, to this effect, Case 36/74 Walrave [1974] ECR 1405, paragraph 28, and Case 237/83 Prodest [1984] ECR 3153, paragraph 6.

  94. 94.

    Compare Walrave, cited above, paragraph 29, and Case C-415/43 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraphs 82 and 83.

  95. 95.

    See Case C-214/94 Boukhalfa [1996] ECR I-2253.

  96. 96.

    Article 3(1) Directive 2004/38.

  97. 97.

    See Case C-148/02 Garcia-Avello [2003] ECR I-11613 and C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR I-1177.

  98. 98.

    Compare Case 43/75 Defrenne [1976] ECR 455, paragraph 31.

  99. 99.

    Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice [1998] ECR I-2521.

  100. 100.

    Case C-208/05 ITC Innovative Technology Center [2007] ECR I-181.

  101. 101.

    See, for comparison, Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), pp. 157 and 158. Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, paragraphs 35 and 36; Case C-411/98 Ferlini [2000] ECR I-8081, paragraph 50 and case-law cited.

  102. 102.

    Compare to that effect, Walrave, cited above, paragraphs 17 and 18, and Case C-415/93 Bosman and Others [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 83.

  103. 103.

    See Angonese, cited above, paragraph 33; Walrave, cited above, paragraph 19, and Bosman, cited above, paragraph 84.

  104. 104.

    Compare C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, paragraphs 38–41.

  105. 105.

    Compare C-94/07 Raccanelli [2008] ECR I-5939, paragraphs 46–48.

  106. 106.

    Case E-26/13 Gunnarsson, judgment of 27 June 2014, published electronically.

  107. 107.

    See Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 836.

  108. 108.

    See, to this effect, Case C-464/02 Commission v. Denmark (Danish Company Cars) [2005] ECR I-7929, paragraph 34.

  109. 109.

    E-1/09 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46, paragraph 29 and Case E-2/01 Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 44, paragraph 19.

  110. 110.

    See Angonese, cited above, paragraphs 42 and 44.

  111. 111.

    See Article 7(1) Regulation 492/2011.

  112. 112.

    Case C-213/90 ASTI [1991] ECR I-03507.

  113. 113.

    See Article 7(2) Regulation 492/2011.

  114. 114.

    See Case C-208/07 Chamier-Glisczinski [2009] ECR I-6095, paragraph 66 and case-law cited.

  115. 115.

    Case 32/75 Cristini [1975] ECR 1085, paragraph 13.

  116. 116.

    See, inter alia, Case 261/83 Castelli [1984] ECR 3199, paragraph 11.

  117. 117.

    Case C-57/96 Meints [1997] ECR I-6689, paragraph 39, and case-law cited.

  118. 118.

    Cristini, cited above, paragraph 13.

  119. 119.

    Case 65/81 Reina [1982] ECR 33.

  120. 120.

    Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289, paragraph 19, and case-law cited.

  121. 121.

    Case C-411/98 Ferlini [2000] ECR I-8081, paragraph 46.

  122. 122.

    See, inter alia, Case C-18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I-345, paragraph 38.

  123. 123.

    See, inter alia, Case 248/80 Broekmeulen [1981] ECR 2311, paragraph 20.

  124. 124.

    Compare Bosman, cited above, paragraphs 94–96.

  125. 125.

    In this regard, the Court recalled its judgment in Case 81/87 Daily Mail and General Trust [1988] ECR 5483 where it had been held that even though the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment were directed mainly at ensuring that foreign nationals and companies were treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State, they also prohibited the EU State of origin from hindering the establishment in another EU State of one of its nationals or of a company incorporated under its legislation. This finding was based the argument that the rights guaranteed by freedom of establishment would be rendered meaningless if the EU State of origin could prohibit undertakings from leaving in order to establish themselves in another EU State (see Bosman, paragraph 97).

  126. 126.

    Compare Bosman, cited above, paragraphs 98–100, and 103.

  127. 127.

    Case C-385/00 De Groot [2002] ECR I-11819; Case C-209/01 Schilling [2003] ECR I-13389, Case C-137/04 Rockler [2006] ECR I-1441, Case C-345/05 Commission v. Portugal [2006] EVCR I-10633 and Case C-40/05 Lysski [2007] ECR I-99.

  128. 128.

    Case C-18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I-354, paragraph 40.

  129. 129.

    Compare Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37.

  130. 130.

    Compare Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493, paragraphs 23–25, and Case C-176/96 Lehtonen [2000] ECR I-2681.

  131. 131.

    Gebhard, cited above, paragraph 37.

  132. 132.

    Case E-15/12 Wahl [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep 534, paragraph 80, and case-law cited.

  133. 133.

    Article 27(1) Directive 2004/38.

  134. 134.

    Case E-15/12 Wahl [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep 534, paragraph 83, and case-law cited.

  135. 135.

    Article 27(2) Directive 2004/38.

  136. 136.

    Article 27(2) Directive 2004/38. This is essentially a codification of case-law, compare Cases 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR 1219, paragraph 28 and Case 30/77 Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, paragraph 35.

  137. 137.

    Wahl, cited above, paragraph 92.

  138. 138.

    Article 29(1) Directive 2004/38.

  139. 139.

    Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, at paragraph 33.

  140. 140.

    Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep 86, paragraph 44, and case-law cited.

  141. 141.

    Case E-3/05 ESA v. Norway [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 102, paragraph 57.

  142. 142.

    Case E-2/06 ESA v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 164, paragraph 79, and case-law cited.

  143. 143.

    Case E-1/09 ESA v. Liechtenstein, cited above, paragraph 37.

  144. 144.

    Case E-9/11 ESA v. Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442, paragraph 86.

  145. 145.

    Case E-15/11 Arcade Drilling [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 676, paragraph 85, and case-law cited.

  146. 146.

    Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraph 164, and case-law cited.

References

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G, Tomkins A (2010) European Union law: cases and materials, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild E, Peers S, Tomkin J (2014) The EU citizenship directive: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Van Nuffel P (2011) European Union law. Sweet and Maxwell, London, pp 157 and 158

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. District Court of Reykjavik, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Kjartan Bjarni Björgvinsson

Authors
  1. Kjartan Bjarni Björgvinsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kjartan Bjarni Björgvinsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Björgvinsson, K.B. (2016). Free Movement of Persons. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation