MG: does it reset completely? Case law says that its not clear, seems that it resets completely but
case law on family law would be against convention on human rights. Basically resets time, but
should be considered that the person still counts under article 7. They are still in the three months,
because else it would be against human rights.
Issue 1
MS are not obliged to give study assistance, but if they do, they must do it in accordance with EU law.
- Is it deterrent /hindering her free movement or making it less attractive
- State can ask for a genuine link between the student and the state
You don’t have to refer specifically back to Bosman: any measure that hinders or makes less
attractive the free movement can violate EU law. Even if it is non-discrimination. Other cases can also
be used on this one but Bosman is the leading case. In Graff, Bosman was restricted. This restriction
must be a barrier which is already in place, which is the case because it is a policy. Graff case is not
applied here.
Then you look at the justification, so link to the state could be a justification. Prinz and Seeberger.
Residence alone is not enough. You could say it is a measure to encourage students to stud in their
own MS. This was the case in Bressol.
You must check whether the measure is proportionate to use the justifications of public policy,
financial burden. Court says a lot that the measure is not proportionate.
Issue 2
First we have to check whether he is allowed to work in the MS. Art. 1 of Regulation 492/11.
Then you go to article 18 which is the general article on discrimination.
Dano case: person needs to be resident, needs to fall under article 7 or 16. You also should have said
that there is a genuine chance that he would find a job. Equal treatment only if you are resident
under the directive to receive equal treatment is only for social assistance. As long as he provides
that he is seeking for work then it is okay.
- If he is allowed to stay
- if he gets an allowance
Fact that you can stay does not mean that you are entitled to an allowance, it is two different things.
Go to Alemanovic: if worker has not worked in MS before he cannot be expelled but he can be
restricted from sustenance allowance. Lost working status. Job seeker and worker are two different
things. You need to produce evidence that you are a job seeker and that it is likely that you will find a
job. You use this case depending on how you use it.
You were not supposed to do the proportionality test if you use 24 (2) as it is already enshrined in the
provision. So you just apply the article and that’s it.
Everything that is relevant to get to the outcome of your case should be mentioned and always use
case law. So even if there is only an article then you should use cases.
Third issue
Article 18 TFEU and you use Groener, Gebhard.
There are no specific rules to language requirements. Linguistic requirements are usually a condition
for
case law on family law would be against convention on human rights. Basically resets time, but
should be considered that the person still counts under article 7. They are still in the three months,
because else it would be against human rights.
Issue 1
MS are not obliged to give study assistance, but if they do, they must do it in accordance with EU law.
- Is it deterrent /hindering her free movement or making it less attractive
- State can ask for a genuine link between the student and the state
You don’t have to refer specifically back to Bosman: any measure that hinders or makes less
attractive the free movement can violate EU law. Even if it is non-discrimination. Other cases can also
be used on this one but Bosman is the leading case. In Graff, Bosman was restricted. This restriction
must be a barrier which is already in place, which is the case because it is a policy. Graff case is not
applied here.
Then you look at the justification, so link to the state could be a justification. Prinz and Seeberger.
Residence alone is not enough. You could say it is a measure to encourage students to stud in their
own MS. This was the case in Bressol.
You must check whether the measure is proportionate to use the justifications of public policy,
financial burden. Court says a lot that the measure is not proportionate.
Issue 2
First we have to check whether he is allowed to work in the MS. Art. 1 of Regulation 492/11.
Then you go to article 18 which is the general article on discrimination.
Dano case: person needs to be resident, needs to fall under article 7 or 16. You also should have said
that there is a genuine chance that he would find a job. Equal treatment only if you are resident
under the directive to receive equal treatment is only for social assistance. As long as he provides
that he is seeking for work then it is okay.
- If he is allowed to stay
- if he gets an allowance
Fact that you can stay does not mean that you are entitled to an allowance, it is two different things.
Go to Alemanovic: if worker has not worked in MS before he cannot be expelled but he can be
restricted from sustenance allowance. Lost working status. Job seeker and worker are two different
things. You need to produce evidence that you are a job seeker and that it is likely that you will find a
job. You use this case depending on how you use it.
You were not supposed to do the proportionality test if you use 24 (2) as it is already enshrined in the
provision. So you just apply the article and that’s it.
Everything that is relevant to get to the outcome of your case should be mentioned and always use
case law. So even if there is only an article then you should use cases.
Third issue
Article 18 TFEU and you use Groener, Gebhard.
There are no specific rules to language requirements. Linguistic requirements are usually a condition
for
