ECJ The free movement of workers enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment. The period of time for which the person seeking employment may stay may be limited, but, in order for the effectiveness of Article 48 to be secured, persons concerned must be given a reasonable time in which to apprise themselves, in the territory of the Member State concerned, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged. In the absence of a Community provision prescribing the amount of time, it is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged. 2. A declaration recorded in the Council minutes at the time of the adoption of a provision of secondary legislation cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting that provision where no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and the declaration therefore has no legal significance.
The Secretary of State had ordered that A, who had been convicted of drug offences, be deported pursuant to section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 having deemed his deportation to be conducive to the public good. Under paragraph 143 of H.C. 169 the Immigration Appeals Tribunal ruled that he could no longer be treated as a community worker, and rely on Council Directive (64/221/E.E.C.) of 25 February 1964 (relative to the movement and residence of foreign nationals restricted on grounds of public policy, public security or public health,) since he had not entered employment by the end of the six-month period. A had challenged this ruling before the Divisional Court which then asked the European Court whether for the purpose of determining whether a national of a Member State is to be treated as a ‘worker’ when seeking employment so as to be immune from deportation (save in accordance with Council Directive 64/221 E.E.C.) ‘the legislature of the second Member State may provide that such a national may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if after six months from admission to that territory he has failed to enter employment?’
Held: A person seeking employment was to be regarded as a ‘worker’ but it was not contrary to community law ‘for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provided evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged.’
 ECR I-745, C-292/89,  EUECJ C-292/89,  2 CMLR 373
Cited – Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security HL 13-Nov-1997
The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to . .
Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Cited – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160341