Sammendrag
|
|
|
1. 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.
|
|
1. Princippet om arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed, som indfoert ved Traktatens artikel 48, indebaerer, at EF-statsborgere har ret til frit at bevaege sig paa andre medlemsstaters nationale omraade samt at tage ophold dér for at soege beskaeftigelse. Den arbejdssoegendes ophold kan tidsbegraenses, men for at formaalet med artikel 48 tilgodeses, skal der gives den paagaeldende en rimelig frist til i den paagaeldende medlemsstat at faa kendskab til de beskaeftigelsestilbud, der svarer til hans erhvervsmaessige kvalifikationer, og til i givet fald at foretage det fornoedne for at blive ansat.
|
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.
|
|
Da der ikke i faellesskabsretten er fastsat en frist herfor, er denne ikke til hinder for, at det i en medlemsstats lovgivning bestemmes, at en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, der er indrejst paa den foerstnaevnte stats omraade for at soege beskaeftigelse dér, kan udvises - medmindre udvisningskendelsen kaeres - saafremt den paagaeldende ikke har opnaaet beskaeftigelse inden seks maaneder. Dette gaelder dog ikke, saafremt den paagaeldende beviser, at han fortsat soeger beskaeftigelse og faktisk har reelle chancer for at opnaa ansaettelse.
|
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.
|
|
2. En erklaering, optaget i protokollatet fra det raadsmoede, hvor Raadet vedtog en bestemmelse i afledt ret, kan ikke tjene som fortolkningsbidrag med hensyn hertil, naar erklaeringens indhold ikke omhandles af bestemmelsen. Erklaeringen er foelgelig uden retlig betydning.
|
|
Dommens præmisser
|
|
|
1 By an order of 14 June 1989, which was received at the Court on 21 September 1989, the High Court of Justice, Queen' s Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the free movement of workers as regards the scope of the right of residence of nationals of Member States seeking employment in another Member State.
|
|
1 Ved kendelse af 14. juni 1989, indgaaet til Domstolen den 21. september s.aa., har High Court of Justice, Queen' s Bench Division, i medfoer af EOEF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt Domstolen to praejudicielle spoergsmaal vedroerende fortolkningen af faellesskabsrettens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed, for saa vidt angaar omfanget af EF-statsborgeres ret til ophold som arbejdssoegende i en anden medlemsstat.
|
2 The questions arose in proceedings between Mr Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen, a Belgian national, and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who on 27 November 1987 decided to deport him from the United Kingdom.
|
|
2 Spoergsmaalene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem den belgiske statsborger Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen og Secretary of State for Home Affairs, der den 27. november 1987 traf afgoerelse om, at Antonissen skulle udvises af Det Forenede Kongerige.
|
3 Mr Antonissen arrived in the United Kingdom in October 1984. He had not yet found work there when, on 30 March 1987, he was sentenced by the Liverpool Crown Court to two terms of imprisonment for unlawful possession of cocaine and possession of that drug with intent to supply. He was released on parole on 21 December 1987.
|
|
3 Gustaff Antonissen indrejste i Det Forenede Kongerige i oktober 1984 og havde endnu ikke fundet beskaeftigelse, da han den 30. marts 1987 ved Crown Court, Liverpool, blev idoemt to faengselsstraffe for ulovlig besiddelse af kokain samt besiddelse heraf med henblik paa videresalg. Han blev proeveloesladt ("on parole") den 21. december 1987.
|
4 The decision to order Mr Antonissen' s deportation was based on section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act"), which authorizes the Secretary of State to deport foreign nationals if he considers that it would be "conducive to the public good".
|
|
4 Beslutningen om udvisning blev truffet i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 5, litra b), i Immigration Act 1971 (herefter benaevnt "1971-loven"), der hjemler Secretary of State ret til at udvise udenlandske statsborgere, naar det er i "offentlighedens interesse".
|
5 Mr Antonissen lodged an appeal against the Secretary of State' s decision with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Before the Tribunal Mr Antonissen argued that since he was a Community national he must qualify for the protection afforded by Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117). The Tribunal took the view that, since he had been seeking employment in the United Kingdom for more than six months, he could no longer be treated as a Community worker and claim that the directive should apply in his case. The Tribunal based this part of its decision on paragraph 143 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC169), adopted pursuant to the 1971 Act, under which a national of a Member State may be deported if, after six months from admission to the United Kingdom, he has not yet found employment or is not carrying on any other occupation.
|
|
5 Gustaff Antonissen indbragte Secretary of State' s ovenfor anfoerte afgoerelse for Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Gustaff Antonissen gjorde herunder gaeldende, at han som EF-statsborger var beskyttet i henhold til Raadets direktiv 64/221/EOEF af 25. februar 1964 om samordning af de saerlige foranstaltninger, som gaelder for udlaendinge med hensyn til rejse og ophold, og som er begrundet i hensynet til den offentlige orden, sikkerhed og sundhed (EFT 1963-1964, s. 109). Immigration Appeal Tribunal fandt, at Gustaff Antonissen, da han havde soegt beskaeftigelse i Det Forenede Kongerige i over seks maaneder, ikke laengere kunne anses for EF-arbejdstager og derfor ikke kunne stoette ret paa direktivet. Immigration Appeal Tribunal henviste i sin afgoerelse til artikel 143 i Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 169) til gennemfoerelse af 1971-loven, hvorefter en EF-statsborger kan udvises, saafremt han ikke inden seks maaneder fra sin indrejse i Det Forenede Kongerige har fundet beskaeftigelse eller udoever en anden form for erhvervsmaessig aktivitet.
|
6 His appeal being dismissed, Mr Antonissen made an application for judicial review to the High Court of Justice, Queen' s Bench Division, which stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
|
|
6 Da Gustaff Antonissen ikke havde faaet medhold i sin klage, anlagde han sag for High Court of Justice, Queen' s Bench Division, der besluttede at udsaette sagen og forelaegge Domstolen foelgende praejudicielle spoergsmaal:
|
"1. For the purpose of determining whether a national of a Member State is to be treated as a 'worker' within the meaning of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty when seeking employment in the territory of another Member State so as to be immune from deportation save in accordance with Council Directive 64/221 of 25 February 1964, may the legislature of the second Member State 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?
|
|
"1) Med henblik paa at fastslaa, om en statsborger i en medlemsstat, der soeger beskaeftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, i denne forbindelse skal betragtes som 'arbejdstager' i den i EOEF-Traktatens artikel 48 forudsatte betydning og dermed er beskyttet mod udvisning, medmindre denne har hjemmel i Raadets direktiv 64/221 af 25. februar 1964, spoerges: Kan lovgivningen i den sidstnaevnte medlemsstat hjemle, at en saadan person kan udvises fra denne stats omraade (udvisningskendelsen kan dog kaeres), saafremt den paagaeldende seks maaneder efter indrejsen i vedkommende stat ikke har opnaaet beskaeftigelse?
|
2. In answering the foregoing question what weight if any is to be attached by a court or tribunal of a Member State to the declaration contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Council when the Council adopted Directive 68/360?"
|
|
2) I tilknytning til besvarelsen af det foregaaende spoergsmaal spoerges: Hvilken betydning - om nogen overhovedet - skal en domstol eller anden retslig instans i en medlemsstat tillaegge den erklaering, der blev optaget i protokollatet fra raadsmoedet, da Raadet vedtog direktiv 68/360?"
|
7 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case before the national court, the applicable legislation and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
|
|
7 Vedroerende sagens faktiske omstaendigheder, de relevante bestemmelser samt de skriftlige indlaeg, der er indgivet til Domstolen, henvises i oevrigt til retsmoederapporten. Disse omstaendigheder omtales derfor kun i det foelgende i det omfang, det er noedvendigt for forstaaelsen af Domstolens argumentation.
|
8 By means of the questions submitted to the Court for a preliminary ruling the national court essentially seeks to establish whether it is contrary to the provisions of Community law governing the free movement of workers 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.
|
|
8 Med de praejudicielle spoergsmaal oensker den nationale retsinstans navnlig oplyst, hvorvidt faellesskabsrettens regler om arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed er til hinder for, at en medlemsstats lovgivning indeholder bestemmelser om, at en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, der er indrejst i den foerste stat for at soege beskaeftigelse, kan paalaegges at udrejse af denne stat (hvilken afgoerelse kan paaklages), saafremt han ikke har fundet beskaeftigelse dér inden seks maaneder.
|
9 In that connexion it has been argued that, according to the strict wording of Article 48 of the Treaty, Community nationals are given the right of move freely within the territory of the Member States for the purpose only of accepting offers of employment actually made (Article 48(3)(a) and (b)) whilst the right to stay in the territory of a Member State is stated to be for the purpose of employment (Article 48(3)(c)).
|
|
9 Hertil er det blevet anfoert, at Traktatens artikel 48 efter sin ordlyd alene giver EF-statsborgere ret til frit at bevaege sig inden for medlemsstaternes omraade med henblik paa at soege faktisk tilbudte stillinger [stk. 3, litra a) og b)], hvorimod retten til at tage ophold i en af disse stater forudsaetter beskaeftigelse [stk. 3, litra c)].
|
10 Such an interpretation would exclude the right of a national of a Member State to move freely and to stay in the territory of the other Member States in order to seek employment there, and cannot be upheld.
|
|
10 En saadan fortolkning, der afskaerer en EF-statsborgers ret til frit at bevaege sig og tage ophold i andre medlemsstater med henblik paa at soege beskaeftigelse, kan ikke antages.
|
11 Indeed, as the Court has consistently held, freedom of movement for workers forms one of the foundations of the Community and, consequently, the provisions laying down that freedom must be given a broad interpretation (see, in particular, the judgment of 3 June 1986 in Case 139/85 Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1986] ECR 1741, paragraph 13).
|
|
11 Ifoelge Domstolens faste praksis er arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed et af Faellesskabets grundlaeggende principper, hvorfor bestemmelser til gennemfoerelse af denne frihed skal fortolkes udvidende (jf. bl.a. dom af 3.7.1986, sag 139/85, Kempf, Sml. s. 1741, praemis 13).
|
12 Moreover, a strict interpretation of Article 48(3) would jeopardize the actual chances that a national of a Member State who is seeking employment will find it in another Member State, and would, as a result, make that provision ineffective.
|
|
12 En snaever fortolkning af artikel 48, stk. 3, kan endvidere skade en arbejdssoegende EF-statsborgers muligheder for at finde beskaeftigelse i en anden medlemsstat og saaledes modvirke formaalet med bestemmelsen.
|
13 It follows that Article 48(3) must be interpreted as enumerating, in a non-exhaustive way, certain rights benefiting nationals of Member States in the context of the free movement of workers and that that freedom also 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.
|
|
13 Heraf foelger, at artikel 48, stk. 3, skal fortolkes saaledes, at den indeholder en ikke udtoemmende opregning af visse rettigheder, som EF-statsborgere har i relation til arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed, og at denne frihed ligeledes omfatter EF-statsborgeres ret til frit at bevaege sig i andre medlemsstater med henblik paa at soege beskaeftigelse der.
|
14 Moreover, that interpretation of the Treaty corresponds to that of the Community legislature, as appears from the provisions adopted in order to implement the principle of free movement, in particular Articles 1 and 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), which presuppose that Community nationals are entitled to move in order to look for employment, and hence to stay, in another Member State.
|
|
14 En saadan fortolkning af Traktaten er i oevrigt i overensstemmelse med den, faellesskabslovgiver har anlagt, hvilket fremgaar af bestemmelserne til gennemfoerelse af princippet om fri bevaegelighed, navnlig artikel 1 og 5 i Raadets forordning (EOEF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed inden for Faellesskabet (EFT 1968 II, s. 467), hvori det forudsaettes, at EF-statsborgere har ret til at indrejse i en anden medlemsstat for at soege beskaeftigelse og foelgelig ogsaa ret til at opholde sig der.
|
15 It must therefore be ascertained whether the right, under Article 48 and the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 (cited above), to stay in a Member State for the purposes of seeking employment can be subjected to a temporal limitation.
|
|
15 Det skal herefter undersoeges, om retten til at tage ophold med henblik paa at soege beskaeftigelse, saaledes som den fremgaar af artikel 48 samt af forordning nr. 1612/68, kan begraenses tidsmaessigt.
|
16 In that regard, it must be pointed out in the first place that the effectiveness of Article 48 is secured in so far as Community legislation or, in its absence, the legislation of a Member State gives persons concerned 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.
|
|
16 Hertil bemaerkes indledningsvis, at formaalet med artikel 48 tilgodeses, naar faellesskabslovgivningen eller national lovgivning giver de paagaeldende en rimelig frist til i den paagaeldende medlemsstat at faa kendskab til de beskaeftigelsestilbud, der svarer til deres erhvervsmaessige kvalifikationer, og til i givet fald at foretage det fornoedne for at blive ansat.
|
17 The national court referred to the declaration recorded in the Council minutes at the time of the adoption of the aforesaid Regulation No 1612/68 and of Council Directive 68/360/EEC (of the same date) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485). That declaration reads as follows:
|
|
17 Den nationale retsinstans har henvist til den erklaering, der blev optaget i protokollatet fra det raadsmoede, hvor Raadet vedtog forordning nr. 1612/68 samt direktiv 68/360/EOEF af samme dato om afskaffelse af restriktioner om rejse og ophold inden for Faellesskabet for medlemsstaternes arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer (EFT 1968 II, s. 477), der lyder saaledes:
|
"Nationals of a Member State as referred to in Article 1 [of the directive] who move to another Member State in order to seek work there shall be allowed a minimum period of three months for the purpose; in the event of their not having found employment by the end of that period, their residence on the territory of this second State may be brought to an end.
|
|
"De i artikel 1 (i direktiv 68/360) omhandlede personer, der er statsborgere i en medlemsstat, og som rejser til en anden medlemsstat og soeger arbejde der, har mindst tre maaneder til raadighed hertil; saafremt de ikke inden udloebet af dette tidsrum har fundet arbejde, kan deres ret til ophold paa sidstnaevnte stats omraade bringes til ophoer.
|
However, if the above-mentioned persons should be taken charge of by national assistance (social welfare) in the second State during the aforesaid period they may be invited to leave the territory of this second State."
|
|
Saafremt imidlertid de naevnte personer i det naevnte tidsrum maa understoettes af det offentlige i sidstnaevnte stat kan de opfordres til at forlade sidstnaevnte stats omraade."
|
18 However, such a declaration cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting a provision of secondary legislation where, as in this case, no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question. The declaration therefore has no legal significance.
|
|
18 En saadan erklaering kan ikke tjene som fortolkningsbidrag med hensyn til en bestemmelse i afledt ret, naar erklaeringens indhold som her overhovedet ikke omhandles af bestemmelsen. Erklaeringen er foelgelig uden retlig betydning.
|
19 For their part, the United Kingdom and the Commission argue that, under Article 69(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (version consolidated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, Official Journal 1983 No L 230, p. 6), the Member States may limit to three months the period during which nationals from other Member States may stay in their territory in order to seek employment. According to the provision in question, an unemployed person who has acquired entitlement to benefits in a Member State and goes to another Member State to seek employment there retains entitlement to those benefits for a maximum period of three months.
|
|
19 Den britiske regering og Kommissionen har anfoert, at det af artikel 69, stk. 1, i Raadets forordning (EOEF) nr. 1408/71 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger paa arbejdstagere, selvstaendige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Faellesskabet (som kodificeret ved Raadets forordning (EOEF) nr. 2001/83 af 2.6.1983 (EFT L 230, s. 6)), fremgaar, at medlemsstaterne kan begraense retten til ophold for en arbejdssoegende, der er statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, til tre maaneder. Ifoelge denne bestemmelse bevarer en arbejdsloes arbejdstager, der har opnaaet ret til ydelser i en medlemsstat, og som rejser til en anden medlemsstat for at soege beskaeftigelse der, sin ret til disse ydelser i et tidsrum af hoejst tre maaneder.
|
20 That argument cannot be upheld. As the Advocate General has rightly observed, there is no necessary link between the right to employment benefit in the Member State of origin and the right to stay in the host State.
|
|
20 Dette argument kan ikke godtages. Som generaladvokaten rigtigt har anfoert, bestaar der ikke nogen noedvendig forbindelse mellem ret til ydelser ved arbejdsloeshed i den medlemsstat, hvor den paagaeldende er hjemmehoerende, og ret til ophold i den modtagende medlemsstat.
|
21 In the absence of a Community provision prescribing the period during which Community nationals seeking employment in a Member State may stay there, a period of six months, such as that as laid down in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, does not appear in principle to be insufficient to enable the persons concerned to apprise themselves, in the host Member State, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged and, therefore, does not jeopardize the effectiveness of the principle of free movement. However, if after the expiry of that period the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged, he cannot be required to leave the territory of the host Member State.
|
|
21 Da der ikke findes faellesskabsregler, der fastsaetter en frist for EF-statsborgeres ophold, naar disse soeger beskaeftigelse i en medlemsstat, forekommer en frist paa seks maaneder, som fastsat i den nationale lovgivning, som hovedsagen angaar, som udgangspunkt ikke utilstraekkelig til at give de paagaeldende mulighed for i den modtagende medlemsstat at faa kendskab til beskaeftigelsestilbud, der svarer til deres erhvervsmaessige kvalifikationer, og til i givet fald at foretage det fornoedne til at blive ansat, hvorfor en saadan frist ikke kan anfaegte den tilsigtede virkning af princippet om fri bevaegelighed. Saafremt den paagaeldende efter udloebet af denne frist beviser, at han fortsat soeger arbejde og har reelle chancer for at opnaa ansaettelse, kan den modtagende medlemsstat ikke paalaegge ham at udrejse.
|
22 It must therefore be stated in reply to the questions submitted by the national court that it is not contrary to the provisions of Community law governing the free movement of workers 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.
|
|
22 De spoergsmaal, der er forelagt af den nationale retsinstans, maa saaledes besvares med, at faellesskabsrettens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevaegelighed ikke er til hinder for, at det i en medlemsstats lovgivning bestemmes, at en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, der er indrejst paa den foerstnaevnte stats omraade for at soege beskaeftigelse der, kan udvises - medmindre udvisningskendelsen kaeres - saafremt den paagaeldende ikke har opnaaet beskaeftigelse inden seks maaneder. Dette gaelder dog ikke, saafremt den paagaeldende beviser, at han fortsat soeger beskaeftigelse og faktisk har reelle chancer for at opnaa ansaettelse.
|
|