Amy Rockler v Försäkringskassan.
Date: 2006-02-16
14. According to settled case-law, any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of residence falls within the scope of Article 48 of the Treaty (Case C-385/00 de Groot  [2002] ECR I-11819, paragraph 76; Case C-232/01 Van Lent  [2003] ECR I-11525, paragraph 14; and Case C-209/01 Schilling and Fleck-Schilling  [2003] ECR I-13389, paragraph 23).
15. In addition, it must be pointed out that an official of the European Communities has the status of a migrant worker. It is also apparent from settled case-law that a Community national working in a Member State other than his State of origin does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 48(1) of the Treaty through occupying a post within an international organisation, even if the rules relating to his entry into and residence in the country in which he is employed are specifically governed by an international agreement (Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach and Moritz  [1989] ECR 723, paragraph 11; Schilling and Fleck-Schilling , paragraph 28; and Case C-293/03 My  [2004] ECR I-2013, paragraph 37).
16. It follows that a worker, such as Ms Rockler, who is a national of a Member State, may not be refused the rights and social advantages which Article 48 of the Treaty affords her ( Echternach and Moritz , paragraph 12, and My , paragraph 38).
17. The Court has also held that the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State (Case C-370/90 Singh  [1992] ECR I-4265, paragraph 16; de Groot , paragraph 77; and Van Lent , paragraph 15).
18. In that regard, provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin to exercise his right to freedom of movement constitute an obstacle to that freedom even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned ( de Groot , paragraph 78; Van Lent , paragraph 16; and Schilling and Fleck-Schilling , paragraph 25).
19. National legislation which does not take into account, for the calculation of the amount of parental benefit, periods of employment completed under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities is likely to dissuade citizens of a Member State from working within an institution of the European Union situated in another Member State since, by accepting employment with such an institution, they lose the right to benefit under the national sickness insurance scheme from family benefits to which they would have been entitled had they not accepted that employment (see to that effect, My , paragraph 47).
22. According to the Court’s case-law, a measure restricting one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty may be justified only if it pursues a legitimate objective which is compatible with the Treaty and respects the principle of proportionality. For that reason, such a measure must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Case C-19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, and Case C-100/01 Oteiza Olazabal  [2002] ECR I-10981, paragraph 43).
25. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the reasons which may be invoked by a Member State by way of justification must be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the restrictive measure adopted by that State (Case C-8/02 Leichtle  [2004] ECR I-2641, paragraph 45).