Freedom Of Movement For Workers Research Articles

Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications and the Freedom of Movement for Workers in the EU and EAEU

Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications and the Freedom of Movement for Workers in the EU and EAEU

Imigranci z UE/EFTA w Polsce. Instytucjonalizacja swobodnego przepływu pracowników – realizacja, problemy, bariery

Immigrants from EU/EFTA in Poland. The institutionalization of freedom of movement for workers: implementation, issues, obstacles Poland is gradually transitioning from being a source of migrants to a receiving country, and this applies to two different groups of migrants: third state nationals, and nationals of member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) who arrive in Poland within the freedom of movement for workers. Each of these groups is subject to different legislation, and the present article is concerned with the latter group of migrants: citizens of EU/EFTA states who live and work in Poland. Their number is systematically growing, but it is not known exactly how many EU/EFTA foreigners reside in Poland, as no state institution is in charge of gathering such data; government agencies possess only partial data pertaining to their particular scope of activity. In this article we describe the institutionalization of the freedom of movement process. We present the legal regulations pertaining to freedom of movement, and a map of the bureaus, both Polish and European, associated with the EURES and Solvit networks, tasked with facilitating worker mobility within the EU. We ask whether Poland is implementing the requirements imposed by the EU directive on freedom of movement for workers, or are radical improvements in this area needed. We analyze the administrative and non-institutional obstacles encountered by immigrants from the EU and EFTA as well as the issues met by officials who serve them. We tap from the results of research on the free movement of workers carried out in Poland in 2018.

СВОБОДА ПЕРЕСУВАННЯ ОСОБИ ЯК СКЛАДОВА СИСТЕМИ ЦІННОСТЕЙ В ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОМУ СОЮЗІ

The article deals with topical issues of regulating the freedom of movement of individuals as a component of the value system and the key right of citizens in the European Union. After all, freedom of movement itself includes a whole set of rights, which are both a guarantee of other natural rights and a sign of the rule of law. At the core of European values are liberal fundamental rights and freedoms, democratic principles of government, as well as the rule of law and social state. With the creation and development of the European Communities, the regulation of the right of nationals of Member States to move and reside freely has acquired not only national significance, but also a regional (cross–border) scale, which is an example for other integration entities. The European Union is trying to regulate the freedom of movement of individuals in a unified and at the same time as individualized way as possible. This is what is relevant for Ukraine in the context of European integration, because in Ukraine, some of the society has some fears over the loss of sovereignty through accession to the EU. Attention is drawn to the freedom of movement of all categories of EU and third–country nationals. Freedom of movement for individuals within the European Union covers the complex of rights of EU citizens, as well as their family members, for free movement, residence, employment, economic activity and enjoyment of all social rights in each Member State of the European Union, regardless of their nationality. The specific features of the exercise of the right of free movement within the EU for Ukrainian citizens in the context of the Association Agreement with the EU and the Visa–free Agreement between the EU and Ukraine are also identified. The provisions on working conditions apply only to citizens of Ukraine or EU Member States who work legally on the territory of the other party to the Agreement. The Association Agreement is not about freedom of movement for workers.

Some aspects of the implementation of freedom of movement for workers in the European Union

Some aspects of the implementation of freedom of movement for workers in the European Union

Sound the Shofar in Luxembourg

In March of 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) received a preliminary reference from the Constitutional Court of Romania seeking guidance on the proper implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, commonly known as the Citizen’s Rights Directive, and its applicability to same-sex spouses. This Article is the first to argue that a proper decision by the ECJ would force Member States to recognize—to an extent necessary for purposes of providing and protecting the fundamental EU Citizen’s right to free movement—marriages and equivalent partnership recognitions conducted and legally recognized in other Member States. This unique argument derives from a comparative analysis of Israeli jurisprudence, most notably the Israeli High Court of Justice’s ruling in Ben Ari v. Director of Population Administration. This Article explores the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC, which stipulates the freedom of movement for workers within the Member States is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens so long as certain employment criterion is met. This right, in general, extends to the immediate family and dependents of the worker who is asserting that right, meaning that in a heterosexual marriage, the husband or wife of a worker who decides to relocate to another EU Member State to work can move with their partner and live without major legal problems or immigration status concerns. While EU law currently guarantees these spousal rights, the definition of marriage is left to the individual Member States. In balancing the limitations of EU competences in the realm of family law against the need to protect fundamental rights of EU citizens, this article argues the ECJ could be guided by the Israeli High Court of Justice, which crafted an opinion mandating that the Israeli government record same-sex couples legally married abroad as “married” in the official population registry. This recording entitles the partners to prima facie evidence of their marital status, thus affording them the rights of married couples under Israeli law without constituting an official “marriage” under the laws of Israel. By combining the wisdom of the Israeli decision with the unique limitations of the EU, this article argues that the ECJ should require all Member States to acknowledge the prima facie validity of cross-border legal same-sex marriages only to the extent necessary to allow the Member State to provide the rights and protections guaranteed as fundamental under EU law.

Sound the Shofar in Luxembourg: Cross-Border Recognition of Same-Sex Spouses in the European Union and Israel's Ben Ari V. Director of Population Administration

In March of 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) received a preliminary reference from the Constitutional Court of Romania seeking guidance on the proper implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, commonly known as the Citizen’s Rights Directive, and its applicability to same-sex spouses. This Article is the first to argue that a proper decision by the ECJ would force Member States to recognize—to an extent necessary for purposes of providing and protecting the fundamental EU Citizen’s right to free movement—marriages and equivalent partnership recognitions conducted and legally recognized in other Member States. This unique argument derives from a comparative analysis of Israeli jurisprudence, most notably the Israeli High Court of Justice’s ruling in Ben Ari v. Director of Population Administration. This Article explores the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC, which stipulates the freedom of movement for workers within the Member States is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens so long as certain employment criterion is met. This right, in general, extends to the immediate family and dependents of the worker who is asserting that right, meaning that in a heterosexual marriage, the husband or wife of a worker who decides to relocate to another EU Member State to work can move with their partner and live without major legal problems or immigration status concerns. While EU law currently guarantees these spousal rights, the definition of marriage is left to the individual Member States. In balancing the limitations of EU competences in the realm of family law against the need to protect fundamental rights of EU citizens, this article argues the ECJ could be guided by the Israeli High Court of Justice, which crafted an opinion mandating that the Israeli government record same-sex couples legally married abroad as “married” in the official population registry. This recording entitles the partners to prima facie evidence of their marital status, thus affording them the rights of married couples under Israeli law without constituting an official “marriage” under the laws of Israel. By combining the wisdom of the Israeli decision with the unique limitations of the EU, this article argues that the ECJ should require all Member States to acknowledge the prima facie validity of cross-border legal same-sex marriages only to the extent necessary to allow the Member State to provide the rights and protections guaranteed as fundamental under EU law.

Brexit and Labour Migration in the United Kingdom: Transition of a Model Country into a Bulwark?

In the course of the EU’s Eastern enlargement, the United Kingdom was one of the few EU 15 countries which took advantage of the opportunities provided by the freedom of movement for workers from the beginning. Since then, the United Kingdom is prospering and still relies heavily on migrant workers. As the empirical analysis shows, labour migration from the accession countries was not a determining factor in the outcome of the Brexit vote. It was rather the less educated voters who perceive a threat to their social status and their national identity as the EU’s grows. As a result, a policy discussion on varying EU policies is advisable.

European employment policies

This article provides a critical analysis of the EU Employment Policies legal framework. The need to focus on both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of labour is highlighted in the first part. The second part deals with the quantitative aspects, addressing the Employment chapter, State aid, and the freedom of movement for workers. The third part discusses the qualitative side – providing an overview on the EU labour law – and addresses the limitation of the EU’s legislative powers and the need for minimum labour standards. The conclusion underlines the difficulties to get further hard law and the soft law inadequacy.

The law concerning the election of employees’ representatives in company bodies

This paper assesses the juridical aspects of the right to vote for, and be elected as, employee representative in company bodies. The assessment is made in the light of the pending case Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG, C 566/15 before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case was referred to the CJEU by the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) and it was lodged on 3 November 2015. In the case, two issues related to the provisions of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are addressed to the CJEU. One is if it is discrimination on grounds of nationality, another is if national legislation is incompatible with the provisions on freedom of movement for workers, when the national legislation does not permit inviting employees outside a country’s borders to vote or stand as a candidate for the employee representation in that company’s supervisory body. In this paper it is argued that national law in the case at issue is not incompatible with European Union (EU) law. Consequently, there is no discrimination on grounds of nationality, and there is no obstacle to free movement for workers. Instead, it is a matter of what law shall apply.

Potential Benefits of Cross-Border Health Care: the Case of Poland and Germany

IntroductionIt is a remarkable feature of the last decades that our world is becoming more integrated, both with respect to economic activities and in a more general sense. While there are many other observations to corroborate this statement, one indicator is that people increasingly tend to move from one country to another, e.g., as commuters or as tourists. It is important to note that this potentially has implications for health care: First, a need for health care may arise while being in a foreign country, either suddenly due to some developing illness or because of a persistent health problem. Second, people may also wish to go abroad in order to obtain health care. Hence, cross-border health care may be a by-product of people working or temporarily staying in another country while its availability may also constitute the prime reason for crossing national boundaries.Basically, cross-border health care will enhance individual choice sets, by providing another option to obtain health care which may either exhibit a better quality or be available at a lower cost in comparison with a purely national provision. From an economic point of view, it would be desirable to have cross-border health care whenever it could reasonably be expected to generate a net benefit to society, i.e., to the countries involved. However, with individual countries relying on their own system of health insurance, a number of barriers may exist which prevent mutually beneficial transactions. In particular, this is true for social health insurance which, due to restrictions on the benefit package and specific ways of financing, naturally involves a focus on care provided within the country for which it has been designed.Turning to the European Union (EU), health policy has not been on the agenda for many years because the founding treaties contain no specific article explicitly referring to it. Moreover, as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union acknowledges, every EU Member State is first and foremost responsible for organizing its own health care system. However, the implementation of the European Single Market, one of the EU cornerstones today, has affected the health care sector of the Member States by means of the four fundamental freedoms: These imply free movement of goods (e.g., medicinal products and medical devices), freedom of movement for workers (e.g., mobility of health care professionals), the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (e.g., social and private health insurances), and free movement of capital (e.g., investment in health infrastructure), respectively. In addition, the EU is engaged in the coordination of social security systems, and it also assumes a strong role in improving health in areas such as the environment and the workplace (Greer et al., 2014).For a long time, cross-border health care in the EU for individuals with social health insurance has been based on a Social Security Regulation which took effect in 1971. However, this Regulation has been applied in a rather restrictive manner. As a consequence, the number of patients going abroad in order to receive planned health care remained fairly small. The main reason was that prior authorization had to be obtained from domestic authorities who often refused to grant it on the grounds that the requested health care was also available at home. Over time, several EU citizens have challenged this position, either by complaining about long waiting times at home or by arguing more generally that prior authorization would interfere with their right to choose health care in other Member States.In ruling on these cases, the European Court of Justice with its judgements created case law which has, in effect, enhanced patients' rights considerably with respect to crossborder health care (Palm et al., 2011). In turn, this led to a major revision of the Social Security Regulations which took effect in 2010. While maintaining prior authorization of cross-border health care, the new Regulations contain provisions that limit its use such that a refusal will most likely involve no harm to the health of the patient. …

The discursive construction of Romanian immigration in the British media: Digitized press vs. Television documentaries

<p>This paper looks at how the media – particularly the British press and television – frames the issue of Romanian immigrants in Great Britain, in the context of the freedom of movement for workers in the European Union. The study focuses on the frames employed by the British journalists in constructing anti-immigration discourses in the digital and the TV sphere, comparatively. This study analyzes the stereotypes about Romanian people used in two British media formats and the way in which they affect Romania’s country image overseas. Using a mixed research approach, combining framing analysis (Entman, 1993) with critical discourse analysis (Van Dijk, 1993), and dispositif analysis (Charaudeau, 2005) this article investigates 271 news items from three of the most read newspapers in the UK (The Guardian, Daily Mail and The Independent), published online during January 2013 – March 2014. Also, the paper analyzes three film documentaries from BBC (Panorama – The Romanians are Coming? – BBC1, The Truth About Immigration – BBC2 and The Great Big Romanian invasion – BBC World News). The analysis shows that the British press and television use both similar and different frames to coverage Romanian migrants. The media also infer the polarization between “Us” (the British media) and “Them” (the Romanian citizens).</p>

The European Internal Market and the Competition between Workers

This article examines to what extent European internal market law has led to regulatory competition between Member States in the field of labour law. Such competition is not limited to the relations between the Member States. Regulatory competition can also occur within the territory of the same Member State, since the internal market also influences the definition of the territorial scope of national labour law, in particular when a cross-border aspect is involved. This article looks into these questions from a legal point of view. First it summarises the principle underlying these issues, more specifically the fact that labour law continues, in the first place, to be a matter of national competence. It subsequently analyses the impact of, and the interplay between, the freedom of movement for workers, the freedom to provide services and the rules of private international law. It pays special attention to the meaning of Posting of Workers Directive 96/71 and analyses how this Directive and the case law of the Court of Justice relating to it are situated at the cross-roads of legal rules and economic interests.

Freedom of movement for workers

Most developed countries have foreign aid programs that aim to alleviate poverty and foster economic growth in less developed countries, but with very limited success. A large body of evidence indicates that the root of the economic development problem is cross-country differences in the productivity of labor. If workers are much more productive in one country than in another, the obvious way to help people in less developed countries is to allow them to help themselves by moving to places where they can be more productive. Yet immigration laws severely constrain such movement.

European Disintegration: Tendencies of Renationalization within the European Union and its Impact on the Common Labor Market and EU Consumer Markets

Starting in 1952 with Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Union (EU) successively enlarged to 27 member states in 2011. Since 2004, 10 Eastern European countries have joined the EU and, at the time of writing, five countries still have official EU candidate status and may join the EU in the near future. The permanent enlargement of the EU has led, and continues to lead, to social, cultural, economic, and linguistic pluralization and heterogenization and, more and more, causes a feeling of alienation among EU citizens. This comes along with a reduced willingness to share power, labor, and money among EU states, provokes tendencies of renationalization, and the resurgence of national thinking and acting. In the European common labor market these tendencies are attended by emerging exclusive nationalistic working climates and therefore undermine the formal freedom of movement for workers within the EU. In the European markets for consumer products (especially for food) these tendencies are reflected in augmented efforts that are undertaken to accentuate the national origin of domestic products. Empirical data of several EU member states will be analyzed and discussed. As a case study, the actual nationalistic tendencies of the Austrian consumer market will be parsed and integrated in a broader European picture. (author's abstract)

The Horizontal Effect of the Free Movement Provisions

The article scrutinizes the issue of horizontal effect in the field of fundamental freedoms. In that regard two main sub-issues are explored: First, the ratione materiae and ratione personae scope of horizontal direct effect of the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for workers, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment is examined with their main rationales. Second, in addition to indirect horizontal direct of the Treaty provisions on free movement of goods, it is examined whether horizontal direct effect in the field of free movement of goods is provided by these provisions on the basis of the same rationales, if not, by the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality of EU law.

Vive la Clause de Standstill: The Issue of First Admission of Turkish Nationals into the Territory of a Member State within the Context of Economic Freedoms

Abstract The article scrutinises the issue of first admission of Turkish nationals into the territory of a Member State within the context of freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and freedom of movement for workers under association law. The article emphasises the prospective potential rights of Turkish nationals to arise from the standstill clause and the principle of non-discrimination, in addition to their present accumulated rights under case law. Moreover, negative legal consequences of the relevant case law for the European integration are expressed, and solutions are offered to circumvent them for the sake of the coherence of EU law.

Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market

The claim of the Court of Justice in the Tobacco Advertising case that the Community institutions lack a general competence to regulate the internal market does not withstand critical examination. The Tobacco Advertising case contained both competence restricting and competence enhancing elements. The principal competence restricting elements were (a) that obstacles to trade could be addressed by removal of the obstacles, but not by a ban on the subject matter of the trade; (b) that harmonisation could only be justified by distortions of competition if those distortions were appreciable; (c) that in principle all provisions of a contested internal market measure must contribute to the internal market aims of the measure in question. The principal competence enhancing element was the proposition that a measure which makes some contribution to the internal market may be adopted an internal market measure even if its main aim is public health protection; despite the fact that harmonisation of public health requirements is in principle ruled out by the Treaty. A further competence enhancing element was that the Court adopted an impressionistic approach to assessment of the requirement that distortions of competition must be appreciable if they were to justify harmonisation, leaving open the possibility that this requirement might be relaxed or sidestepped by the lawmaking institutions. The competence restricting elements of the Tobacco Advertising case have been contradicted or eroded by subsequent case law, such the British American Tobacco case, and the Swedish Match case. After the latter case, obstacles to trade can be addressed by simply banning the trade. After the British American Tobacco case, it seems that hypothetical obstacles to trade, resulting from disparities between national labelling rules, can be addressed by eliminating the disparities in question, even if this makes no contribution to cross border trade in the products in question. In the Leitner case, the Court confirms that its approach to the requirement adopted in Tobacco Advertising, that distortions of competition must be appreciable in order to justify harmonisation, will be an impressionistic one. And in Rundfunk the Court considers that long a measure makes a contribution to the internal market, it is legitimate for that measure to regulate situations which have no link at all with freedom of movement - something of a retreat from the Tobacco Advertising case, but in line with case law dating from the 1960s which gives wide reading to competence to coordinate national social security rules in order to provide freedom of movement for workers. More broadly, it is noted that Community competence has not in practice been confined to removing obstacles to trade and distortions of competition, but extended to harmonising national rules which facilitate freedom of movement and to removing differences between national rules which create uncertainty for those contemplating cross border transactions. This aspect of Community competence to regulate the internal market is potentially far reaching, and could lead to the use of such measures instruments of general governance. This does not seem consistent with a scheme of attributed competences, nor with a system in which decisions are to be taken as closely possible to the citizen, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

EuGH, 30.9.2003, C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich - Liability of a Member State for Damage Caused to Individuals by Infringements of Comm

Mr Köbler has been employed since 1 March 1986 under a public-law contract with the Austrian State in the capacity of ordinary university professor in Innsbruck (Austria). He applied for the special length-of-service increment for university professors. He claimed that, although he had not completed 15 years? service as a professor at Austrian universities, he had completed the requisite length of service if the duration of his service in universities of other Member States of the European Community were taken into consideration. He claimed that the condition of completion of 15 years service solely in Austrian universities amounted to indirect discrimination unjustified under Community law. The Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court) referred to the Court a request for a preliminary ruling, which it later withdrew. It also dismissed Mr Köbler?s application on the ground that the special length-of-service increment was a loyalty bonus which objectively justified a derogation from the Community law provisions on freedom of movement for workers. Then Mr Köbler brought an action for a declaration of liability against the Republic of Austria for breach of a provision of Community law by a judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria before the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), which referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling several questions. The Court held that the principle that Member States are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which they are responsible is also applicable where the alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties. In order to determine whether the infringement is sufficiently serious when the infringement at issue stems from such a decision, the competent national court, taking into account the specific nature of the judicial function, must determine whether that infringement is manifest. Secondly, the Court held that a measure such as the special length-of-service increment under Austrian law results in an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers which cannot be justified by a pressing public-interest reason. Finally, the Court decided that an infringement of Community law, such as that stemming in the circumstances of the main proceedings from the judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, does not have the requisite manifest character for liability under Community law to be incurred by a Member State for a decision of one of its courts adjudicating at last instance.

The Relationship between Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 Analysed through ECJ Case Law on Frontier Workers

This article analyses the relationship between two EC Regulations protecting the social rights of migrant workers moving within the Union: Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, concerning freedom of movement for workers, and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, concerning the co-ordination of the social security systems of the Member States. The article takes a closer look at the added value of Regulation 1612/68 over Regulation 1408/71. It begins by outlining the framework and general content of Regulation 1612/68 and explains its legal relationship with Regulation 1408/71. Building on ECJ case law, accepting that Regulation 1612/68 also applies to frontier workers, it then analyses the added value of Regulation 1612/68 over Regulation 1408/71. It argues that there is, in particular, added value for benefits not falling within the scope of Regulation 1408/71, such as some family benefits, pre-retirement benefits or career-interruption benefits. However for benefits covered by Regulation 1408/71, the latter takes precedence over Regulation 1612/68, which means that in some cases residence requirements can be maintained. At the end of the article, there is an assessment of the unresolved problems involved in applying Regulation 1612/68. It follows from the analysis that uncertainties and even loopholes still exist as regards the legal position of migrant workers under this regulation. It reveals that in certain cases migrant workers, in particular frontier workers, can still risk falling between two stools, or conversely, can end up having the best of both worlds.

THE CASE OF FREE MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Turkey has be en an associate member of the EV sinee i963. The Ankara Agreement of 19631 regulates cconomie, social and financial mallers. In the preamble, it is stated that the agreement seeks to bring about 'ever closer bonds between the Turkish pcople and the pcople brought together in the European Economic Community'. It was believed that social and cultural integration between their people could best be achieved through the movement of peoplcs across national boundaries. This, the parties sought to achieve through the gradual introduction of 'freedom of movement for workers, professionals and entrepreneurs' (Articles 12 to 14 of the Ankara Agreement) Since the international mavement of labour involves far greater number of individuals, it is this aspect of social integration whieh deserves particular attention.