BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SOME BODY OR ORGANIZATION THE ACTIVITIES OF WHICH THE MEMBER STATE CONSIDERS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD BUT WHICH ARE NOT UNLAWFUL IN THAT STATE;
( B ) THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL INTENDS TO TAKE EMPLOYMENT IN THE MEMBER STATE WITH SUCH A BODY OR ORGANIZATION IT BEING THE CASE THAT NO RESTRICTIONS ARE PLACED UPON NATIONALS OF THE MEMBER STATE WHO WISH TO TAKE SIMILAR EMPLOYMENT WITH SUCH A BODY OR ORGANIZATION . "
17 IT IS NECESSARY, FIRST, TO CONSIDER WHETHER ASSOCIATION WITH A BODY OR AN ORGANIZATION CAN IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE PERSONAL CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 . ALTHOUGH A PERSON' S PAST ASSOCIATION CANNOT IN GENERAL, JUSTIFY A DECISION REFUSING HIM THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, IT IS NEVERTHELESS THE CASE THAT PRESENT ASSOCIATION, WHICH REFLECTS PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BODY OR OF THE ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS IDENTIFICATION WITH ITS AIMS AND ITS DESIGNS, MAY BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE PERSON CONCERNED AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AS PART OF HIS PERSONAL CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION CITED .
18 THIS THIRD QUESTION FURTHER RAISES THE PROBLEM OF WHAT IMPORTANCE MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY THE MEMBER STATE AS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD ARE NOT HOWEVER PROHIBITED BY NATIONAL LAW . IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHERE, IN PARTICULAR, IT IS USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR DEROGATING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS, MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY, SO THAT ITS SCOPE CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNILATERALLY BY EACH MEMBER STATE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY . NEVERTHELESS, THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING RECOURSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAY VARY FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER AND FROM ONE PERIOD TO ANOTHER, AND IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER TO ALLOW THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AN AREA OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE TREATY .
19 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE THAT WHERE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED THEIR STANDPOINT AS REGARDS THE ACTIVITIES OF A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION AND WHERE, CONSIDERING IT TO BE SOCIALLY HARMFUL, THEY HAVE TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES TO COUNTERACT THESE ACTIVITIES, THE MEMBER STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED, BEFORE IT CAN RELY ON THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY, TO MAKE SUCH ACTIVITIES UNLAWFUL, IF RECOURSE TO SUCH A MEASURE IS NOT THOUGHT APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES .
20 THE QUESTION RAISES FINALLY THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER A MEMBER STATE IS ENTITLED, ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, TO PREVENT A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FROM TAKING GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT WITHIN ITS TERRITORY WITH A BODY OR ORGANIZATION, IT BEING THE CASE THAT NO SIMILAR RESTRICTION IS PLACED UPON ITS OWN NATIONALS .
21 IN THIS CONNEXION, THE TREATY, WHILE ENSHRINING THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF