CELEX: C2004/106/14
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court) 23 March 2004 — In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (‘Freedom of movement for persons — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of “worker” — Social security allowance paid to jobseekers — Residence requirement — Citizenship of the European Union’)

30.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/9
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FULL COURT)
   
   23 March 2004
   In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1)
   
   (‘Freedom of movement for persons - Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) - Concept of “worker” - Social security allowance paid to jobseekers - Residence requirement - Citizenship of the European Union’)
   (2004/C 106/14)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-138/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Social Security Commissioner (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Brian Francis Collins and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 1), and of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485), the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 2004, in which it has ruled:
   
               1.
            
            
               A person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings is not a worker for the purposes of Title II of Part I of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992. It is, however, for the national court or tribunal to establish whether the term “worker” as referred to by the national legislation at issue is to be understood in that sense.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               A person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings does not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom solely on the basis of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The right to equal treatment laid down in Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC), read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 17 EC), does not preclude national legislation which makes entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance conditional on a residence requirement, in so far as that requirement may be justified on the basis of objective considerations that are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.