Rui Alberto Pereira Roque v His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey.
Date: 1998-07-16
11 It is apparent from the order for reference that Jersey is a semi-autonomous dependency of the British Crown, which is represented in Jersey by the Lieutenant Governor.  The United Kingdom Government, on behalf of the Crown, is responsible for defence and international relations.
34 It should be noted first of all that, according to paragraph 16 of the judgment in Barr and Montrose Holdings, the rule laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 3 cannot be interpreted in such a way as to be used as an indirect means of applying on the territory of the Channel Islands provisions of Community law which are not applicable there by virtue of Article 227(5)(c) of the EEC Treaty and Article 1 of Protocol No 3, such as the rules on the free movement of workers.
35 As the Court held in paragraph 17 of that judgment, however, the principle of equal treatment laid down by Article 4 of Protocol No 3 is not limited exclusively to the matters governed by Community rules which are referred to in Article 1 of that protocol; Article 4 must be regarded as an independent provision so far as its scope is concerned.  It must be interpreted as precluding any discrimination between natural and legal persons from the Member States in relation to situations which, in territories where the Treaty is fully applicable, are governed by Community law.
36 It follows that, in so far as Mr Pereira Roque's situation falls under, inter alia, rules on the free movement of workers in territories where the Treaty is fully applicable, the rule set out in Article 4 of Protocol No 3 applies to him, even if Community nationals cannot thereby obtain in the Channel Islands the benefit of the rules on the free movement of workers (see, on that point, Barr and Montrose Holdings, paragraph 18).  That rule in Article 4 of Protocol No 3 applies in particular in the case of a deportation order made against him by the Jersey authorities.
37 In order to assess the implications of the principle of equal treatment laid down by Article 4 of Protocol No 3 in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, it is important to recall in the first place that the Court has held that the reservation contained in Article 48(3) of the EC Treaty permits Member States to adopt, with respect to the nationals of other Member States and on the grounds specified in that provision, in particular grounds justified by the requirements of public policy, measures which they cannot apply to their own nationals, inasmuch as they have no authority to expel the latter from the national territory or deny them access thereto (see Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337, paragraph 22; Joined Cases 115/81 and 116/81 Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium [1982] ECR 1665, paragraph 7; Case C-370/90 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1992] ECR I-4265, paragraph 22; and Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-111/95 Shingara and Radiom [1997] ECR I-3343, paragraph 28).
38 That difference of treatment between a State's own nationals and those of other States derives from a principle of international law which precludes a State from denying its own nationals the right to enter its territory and reside there, and which the EC Treaty cannot be assumed to disregard in the context of relations between Member States (Van Duyn v Home Office, paragraph 22).
41 However, since Channel Islanders are British nationals, the distinction between them and other citizens of the United Kingdom cannot be likened to the difference in nationality between the nationals of two Member States.
42 Nor can relations between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom be regarded as similar to those between two Member States because of other aspects of the status of those Islands.
49 The fact remains, however, that the rule on equal treatment laid down by Article 4 of Protocol No 3 prohibits the Jersey authorities, even if difference of treatment between citizens of the United Kingdom and nationals of other Member States is allowed, from basing the exercise of their powers on factors which would have the effect of applying an arbitrary distinction to the detriment of nationals of other Member States (see, on that point, Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium, paragraph 7).
50 Such an arbitrary distinction would be applied if a deportation order were made against a national of another Member State on the basis of an assessment of conduct which, when attributable to the nationals of the first State, does not give rise to repressive measures or other genuine and effective measures intended to combat such conduct (see, on that point, Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium, cited above).