A Belgian service provider brought its Moroccan workers to France in order to carry out a demolition contract. The workers had been ‘lawfully and habitually employed’ in Belgium and they intended to return to Belgium after completion of the project. The French employment inspectors considered that Mr Vander Elst had infringed certain articles of the French Labour Code by employing in France, nationals of non-member countries who had no corresponding work permits, without informing the French authorities. The ECJ answered the questions referred to it by stating that the Treaty ‘precluded a member state from requiring undertakings which are established in another member state and enter the first member state in order to provide services, and which lawfully and habitually employ nationals of non-member countries, to obtain work permits for those workers from a national immigration authority and to pay the costs, with the imposition of an administrative fine as the penalty for infringement.’
Citations:
[1995] 1 CMLR 513, C-43/93, [1994] ECR 1-3803
Jurisdiction:
European
Citing:
Applied – Rush Portuguesa Ld v Office National d’immigration ECJ 27-Mar-1990
ECJ Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 215 and 216 of the Act of Accession of Portugal must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking established in Portugal providing services in the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Low and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.280081
