This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Tiesas spriedums 1991. gada 26. februārī.
The Queen pret Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen.
Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - Apvienotā Karaliste.
Darba ņēmēju brīva pārvietošanās.
1. Free movement of persons - Workers - Right of residence in order to seek employment - Length of stay - Stay limited to six months by the legislation of a Member State - Permissibility - Conditions
(EEC Treaty, Art. 48(3))
2. Community law - Interpretation - Acts of the Institutions - Declaration of the Council recorded in the minutes - Whether to be taken into consideration - Not in the absence of a reference in the measure in question
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.
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.