• Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703 concerned the interpretation of Article 45 Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Regulation 1612/68, and the meaning of ‘worker’ under it.
  • It was held in this case that ‘worker’ encompasses people who have previously entered the employment market, left, but still have a ‘sufficiently close’ connection to the employment market.

Facts of the case:

  • The applicant, who held a citizenship in both Ireland and America, had worked in the United Kingdom for a number of months whilst he was at university, and then when he finished university, he worked in the United States for nearly 20 years. He then returned to the UK and sought employment there.
  • The applicant then sought Jobseeker’s Allowance un the UK, which was refused, on the basis that he was not a habitual UK resident. The applicant challenged this, and a preliminary reference was made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in order to determine whether he was a worker under Regulation 1612/68

Issues in Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703:

  • The issue in this case was whether therefore whether the applicant was a worker under Regulation 1612/68.

The CJEU Held:

  • The CJEU held that the applicant was not a worker for the purposes of that regulation, on the basis that he did not have a ‘sufficiently close’ connection to the UK employment market.
  • His ‘casual’ work he undertook there during his time at university was insufficient to establish this close connection.

The CJEU specifically stated:

  • [26] “the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68 has a specific community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly. Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as t be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a ‘worker’. [I-2744].
  • [28] “Mr Collins performed casual work in the UK, in pubs and bars and in sales, during a 10 month stay there between 1980 and 1981” [I-2744]
  • [29] “in the absence of a sufficiently close connection with the UK employment market, Mr Collins’ position in 1998 must therefore be compared with that of any national of a member state looking for his job in another member state.”
  • [33] “accordingly, the answer to the first question must be that 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 No 1612/68.”
  • “A person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings is not a worker for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68” because there was not a “sufficiently close connection”[29] because the work he did for the UK was “casual” seventeen years ago.

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.