Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection.
Date: 2019-04-11
23


It should be borne in mind that the purpose of Directive 2004/38, as may be seen from recitals 1 to 4 thereof, is to facilitate the exercise of the primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, which is conferred directly on citizens of the Union by Article 21(1) TFEU, and that one of the objectives of that directive is to strengthen that right (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others, C‑127/08, EU:C:2008:449, paragraph 82, and of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
26


Article 7(3) of that directive provides that, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of the directive, a Union citizen who is no longer a worker or self-employed person in the host Member State will nevertheless retain the status of worker or self-employed person in certain circumstances, which the Court has held are not listed exhaustively in paragraph 3 (judgment of 19 June 2014, Saint Prix, C‑507/12, EU:C:2014:2007, paragraph 38), including when he becomes involuntarily unemployed.
36


In that regard, it is important to note, first of all, that according to settled case-law, the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union (judgments of 21 December 2011, Ziolkowski and Szeja, C‑424/10 and C‑425/10, EU:C:2011:866, paragraph 32, and of 19 September 2013, Brey, C‑140/12, EU:C:2013:565, paragraph 49).
37


Next, it should be borne in mind that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 7 October 2010, Lassal, C‑162/09, EU:C:2010:592, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). The origins of a provision of EU law may also contain information relevant to its interpretation (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 November 2012, Pringle, C‑370/12, EU:C:2012:756, paragraph 135; of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 50; and of 24 June 2015, T., C‑373/13, EU:C:2015:413, paragraph 58).
38


Lastly, in view of the context of Directive 2004/38 and the objectives that it pursues, its provisions cannot be interpreted restrictively and must not in any event be deprived of their practical effect (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 December 2007, Eind, C‑291/05, EU:C:2007:771, paragraph 43; of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others, C‑127/08, EU:C:2008:449, paragraph 84; and of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 39).
39


In the present case, first of all, a reading of the provisions of Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with those of Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 shows that entitlement to retain the status of worker as provided for in the latter provision is afforded to all Union citizens who have pursued an activity in the host Member State, whatever the nature of that activity — that is to say, whether they worked in an employed or self-employed capacity (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 December 2017, Gusa, C‑442/16, EU:C:2017:1004, paragraphs 37 and 38).
40


The Court has held, in that regard, that the possibility for an EU citizen who has temporarily ceased to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person of retaining his status of worker on the basis of Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38, as well as the corresponding right of residence under Article 7(1) of the directive, is based on the assumption that the citizen is available and able to re-enter the labour market of the host Member State within a reasonable period (judgment of 13 September 2018, Prefeta, C‑618/16, EU:C:2018:719, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
44


Thus, a Union citizen who has pursued an activity in an employed or self-employed capacity in the host Member State retains his status of worker indefinitely (i) if he is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident, in accordance with Article 7(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38, (ii) if he worked in an employed or self-employed capacity in the host Member State for more than one year before becoming involuntarily unemployed, in accordance with Article 7(3)(b) of that directive (judgment of 20 December 2017, Gusa, C‑442/16, EU:C:2017:1004, paragraphs 29 to 46), or (iii) if he has embarked on vocational training, in accordance with Article 7(3)(d) of the directive.
49


Such an interpretation is consistent with the principal objective pursued by Directive 2004/38, which is, as has been recalled in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, to strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens, and with the objective specifically pursued by Article 7(3) thereof, which is to safeguard, by the retention of the status of worker, the right of residence of persons who have ceased their occupational activity because of an absence of work due to circumstances beyond their control (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 September 2015, Alimanovic, C‑67/14, EU:C:2015:597, paragraph 60; of 25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C‑299/14, EU:C:2016:114, paragraph 47; and of 20 December 2017, Gusa, C‑442/16, EU:C:2017:1004, paragraph 42).