The Basic Principle of European Commission Law - Essay Example

Word count: 1575 Order # 419953 d 11th March Law Article 39 of the European Commission1 provides immense scope for any person to make his free movement with in the territories of the nation and strongly condemns any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States2&3. In the present case study, all the family members i.e. Vaclav, Anna, Kristina and Pavel were clearly discriminated in employment, education and free movement in the name of nationality which is highly objectionable4. It is certainly against the international conventions of United Nations and right to freedom of movement of persons4. Moreover, the ill treatment given to them violates the basic principle of EU law i.e. except in the context of public security, government service and public health, the citizens of any other nations cannot be restricted their rights for free movement and education and employment and they have complete freedom to stay in European Union5. The decision to deport them from United Kingdom is also against the principle of Article 39 EC6 which empowers people to remain in the territory of a Member State7&8 after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions drawn up by the Commission from time to time. Let us analyze the cases more specifically one by one: Vaclav entered United Kingdom from Czech Republic and got the job in Post office, however, he was denied for social security income on the basis of his foreign citizenship. He was also denied for training grant and was paid less salary as a cook than UK nationals. This is certainly against the basic principle of EU law which clearly states that the discrimination against people in working conditions of employment and education in terms of nationality is highly objectionable9&10. Hence, the payment of less salary to Vaclav compared to UK nationals is highly unfair and Vaclav can represent this ill treatment in the court of law. Moreover, he was convicted for applying social security benefits with false representation and was imprisoned for 12 months and was asked to deport from UK. The treatment given to Vaclav is highly unfortunate and objectionable according to the Article 39 EC11. This is against the universal law applicability of the freedom of movement of persons according to the 39 EC12. In the cases of injustice, the foreigners like Vaclav also can claim their rights and represent themselves in European Court of Justice as the basic human rights and employment and education provisions are ensured by the European law to all the nationals living in European Union13&14. Anna though passed English course in Russia and had good fluency in English, she was denied for the job of secretary mentioning that the certificates of other nations are invalid and she was required to undergo separate course in UK. She objected for the same, and preferred to do job as a cleaner in which the salary was paid quite lower than that of UK nationals. In some special circumstances, the compulsion to complete special courses in UK may be justified, but the low salary paid to Anna is highly unfair as far as the basic provisions of EU law are concerned15. to o add to her agony, she was convicted of her illegal entry from Russia to Czech Republic and was also asked to deport from UK. She was also given unfair treatment as far as the freedom of movement of persons is concerned and it is also a violation of rights of persons under Article 39 of EC16. As a family member of Vaclav who is a citizen of EU, Anna has every right to enjoy basic rights in UK17. Kristina was allowed to join a college to do art degree but the student grant and loan were denied mentioning the reason of foreign national. She was even convicted for possession of illegal drugs and was expelled from the college and asked to deport from UK. According to the EU law, any person of other nations also get opportunities to apply for the student grants subject to the national security18&19. In the present case, there was no ground of violation of national security and hence the treatment given to Kristina would be considered under discrimination on the ground of nationality which is highly objectionable20&21. Pavel was denied family child benefit quoting the reason of foreigner. But the EU law allows the extension of the benefit to families of foreigners with children of school age22. Pavel was also arrested and convicted of shoplifting and was also asked to deport from UK. Pavel can represent his case in the International Court of Justice or European Court of Justice and can fight for his rights to take the benefit of the family child benefit. However, if he is found guilty for shop lifting, it would be difficult to protect him from punishment, but at the same time, all the concessions given to the similar age children of UK should be granted to him according to the EU law. The Treaty of Paris (1951)23 and the Treaty of Rome (1957) also supported the free movement of workers of with in the territory of the European Economic Community and Vaclav and his family members can seek the Justice under these conventions along with the EU law. Article 53 of Treaty of Rome (1957)24 clearly states that the member states shall not introduce any new restrictions on the right of establishment in their territories of nationals of other Member States, save as otherwise provided in this Treaty. Hence the ill treatment given to Vaclav and his family members is violation of this article. Moreover, the Article 54 of the treaty states that the Council and the Commission shall ensure priority treatment to activities of all persons of European nations so that the freedom of establishment makes a particularly valuable contribution to the development of production and trade and it also promotes healthy trend among the member nations25. Article 39 EC of EU law derived its regulations from this treaty and hence reiterate the same as far as the movement of persons of other nations in European Union is concerned26. It also mentions that the discrimination of persons for movement and establishment with in European Economic Community has to be condemned. In the present case study, the restrictions imposed on Vaclav and his family members come under strict violation of EU law. Hence Vaclav and his family members have to claim their case legally in European Court of Justice against the unequal or differential treatment27 and forceful deporting28 and they have certain chance of winning the case. At the time of intensified efforts for making the European Citizenship are going on towards further internalization and liberalization of the market and the facilitation of the free movement of workers, the discrimination of the people in the name of nationality cannot be encouraged and hence the Vaclav and his family members would certainly get natural justice according to the Article 39 EC of EU law. Bibliography Costello C, (2009). “Metock: Free Movement and Normal Family Life in the Union”. Common Market Law Review 46: 587-662. Craig, P. & De Burca, G. (2007). "EC Law: Text, Cases,& Materials", OUP Oxford publication. P: 1200. Currie S, (2009). “Accelerated justice or a step too far? Residence rights of non-EU family members and the courts ruling in Metock”. European Law Review, 34(2), 310-326. European Parliament. (2004). Corrigendum to Directive 2004/58/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. Official Journal of the European Union L 229/35. European Union. (2006). “Consolidated versions of the treaty of European Union and of the treaty establishing European Community”. Official Journal of European Union. C 321 E/49. Fernandez Martin J M. (1996). “Re-defining Obstacles to the Free Movement of Workers”. European Law Review, 313-326. Free Movement And Access To Work Of Citizens Of The New Member States (2005): “The Transitional Measures Adelina Adinolfi”. Common Market Law Review; 42: 469-498. Green,Hartley and Usher. (1991). "The Legal Foundations of the Single European Market". Henkel, Cristoph. (2001). “Constitutionalism of the European Union: judicial legislation and political decision-making by the European Court of Justice”, Wisconsin International Law Journal, 19(2): 153. Kaczorowska A. (2009). “European Union Law”, 1st Edition, Cavendish. O’Brien C. (2009). “Social Blind Spots and Monocular Policy Making: The ECJ’s Migrant Worker Model”. Common Market Law Review 46: 1107-1141. Kennedy, Brown and Jacobs. (2000). “The Court of Justice of the European Communities”. Sweet & Maxwell Publication. OLeary S. (2009). “Equal treatment and EU citizens: A new chapter on cross-border educational mobility and access to student financial assistance”. European Law Review, 34(4), 612-627. Shuibhne,N.N. (2002). “Free movement of persons and the wholly internal rule: Time to move on?”. Common Market Law Review, 731-771. Steiner, J. & Woods, L. (2009). “EU Law", OUP Oxford publication. P:790. Vermeulen, A., & C.M.F. Sanders. (1998). “Guide to the European Court of Justice”, European Information Association. Ward. (2009). "A Critical Introduction to European Law", 3rd Edition, Cambridge. Tom Weatherill,S. (2007). "Cases and Materials on EU Law". OUP Oxford publication. P: 650. Wyatt, D. & Dashwood, A. (2006). "European Community Law". Sweet and Maxwell publication. Read More