To: Associate of law firm Bakker
From: Amber Bijkerk, 20129696
Date: 17-12-2021
Subject: Internal Market Law Assignment
Introduction
In this memorandum I will explain Maria Rossi her status as an EU citizen in the three different time
periods and I will explain the most likely unsuccessful claim concerning the koepelorganisatie van
alle arbeiders.
EU Internal Market freedoms
1. 2011-2014
In this period Maria Rossi, whose nationality is Italian, moved to The Hague, here she worked for a
Dutch company Jansen & Visser as an architect. She signed a contract for one year but got renewed as
a 5-year contract. Article 45 TFEU entails constitutive elements, which all must been met in order to
fall under the free movement of workers. 1 The constitutive elements in this case have all been met
since, cross-border dimension, moving from one country towards another has been met because Maria
moved from Italy towards the Netherlands. Maria and the other party thus are EU nationals and
therefore it is “carried out by EU nationals”. Remuneration means that there must be a kind of award
paid for the work or service that is done. From the fact pattern we can assume that since there is a
contract, Maria gets paid a salary for her job and thus is met. The fourth constitutive element is that it
must be either temporary or permanent. In Ms. Rossi her case her contract ends in five years and
therefore we can assume it is temporary. Based on this in the Lawrie-Blum case there must be
subordination.2 This means that Ms. Rossi must be an employer of a company who delivers a service.
Ms. Rossi is an architect at the company Jansen & Visser and therefore, it is met. Because it could not
have been the right of services/establishment since those require the absence of subordination, the
right of free movement of workers is where Maria Rossi falls under from 2011 until 2014.
2. 2015-2018
Maria Rossi decided in 2015 to go back to Florence to assist her family's members. Meanwhile, she
worked for her new clients with her own set up architectural firm in Florence. It is important to
highlight here that Maria set up the firm, in the country where Maria is a national citizen and not in
another EU country. This means that there is no cross-border element. When it comes to setting up
firms another EU country, it falls under the freedom of establishment. However, for a situation to fall
under the freedom of establishment there must be a cross-border dimension, as was stated in Höfner
and Elser.3 Therefore, Maria Rossi her situation does not fall under this freedom.
3. 2021
1
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU) [2016] OJ C202/66
2
Case 66/85 Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986] ECR -02121
3
Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-01979
From: Amber Bijkerk, 20129696
Date: 17-12-2021
Subject: Internal Market Law Assignment
Introduction
In this memorandum I will explain Maria Rossi her status as an EU citizen in the three different time
periods and I will explain the most likely unsuccessful claim concerning the koepelorganisatie van
alle arbeiders.
EU Internal Market freedoms
1. 2011-2014
In this period Maria Rossi, whose nationality is Italian, moved to The Hague, here she worked for a
Dutch company Jansen & Visser as an architect. She signed a contract for one year but got renewed as
a 5-year contract. Article 45 TFEU entails constitutive elements, which all must been met in order to
fall under the free movement of workers. 1 The constitutive elements in this case have all been met
since, cross-border dimension, moving from one country towards another has been met because Maria
moved from Italy towards the Netherlands. Maria and the other party thus are EU nationals and
therefore it is “carried out by EU nationals”. Remuneration means that there must be a kind of award
paid for the work or service that is done. From the fact pattern we can assume that since there is a
contract, Maria gets paid a salary for her job and thus is met. The fourth constitutive element is that it
must be either temporary or permanent. In Ms. Rossi her case her contract ends in five years and
therefore we can assume it is temporary. Based on this in the Lawrie-Blum case there must be
subordination.2 This means that Ms. Rossi must be an employer of a company who delivers a service.
Ms. Rossi is an architect at the company Jansen & Visser and therefore, it is met. Because it could not
have been the right of services/establishment since those require the absence of subordination, the
right of free movement of workers is where Maria Rossi falls under from 2011 until 2014.
2. 2015-2018
Maria Rossi decided in 2015 to go back to Florence to assist her family's members. Meanwhile, she
worked for her new clients with her own set up architectural firm in Florence. It is important to
highlight here that Maria set up the firm, in the country where Maria is a national citizen and not in
another EU country. This means that there is no cross-border element. When it comes to setting up
firms another EU country, it falls under the freedom of establishment. However, for a situation to fall
under the freedom of establishment there must be a cross-border dimension, as was stated in Höfner
and Elser.3 Therefore, Maria Rossi her situation does not fall under this freedom.
3. 2021
1
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU) [2016] OJ C202/66
2
Case 66/85 Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986] ECR -02121
3
Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-01979
