Boris Ignachkov Legal pricniples and points:
- In Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991], the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the UK was acting consistent with Article 45 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in deporting a convicted drug dealer on the basis that he was no longer a worker in the UK, as he had failed to find employment after 6 months. This was because Member States had discretion to give persons concerned a ‘reasonable time’ to find employment, and six months was a reasonable time.
Facts of the case:
- The applicant, Antonissen, moved to the UK, and tried for three years to find a job, however he never did.
- Following a conviction of drug dealing within the UK, the UK sought to deport him
- Antonissen argued that this proposed deportation was an impingement of his Article 45 TFEU rights, which is the free movement of workers within the European Union.
- Under UK law, a person would cease to be a ‘worker’ under Article 45 TFEU, if they did not find work within six months of entry in the UK.
- Antonissen appealed to the CJEU to determine whether his Article 45 rights had been breached by the UK’s decision to deport him.
Issues in Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991]:
- Whether the UK’s decision to deport Antonissen constituted an impingement of Article 45 TFEU, the free movement of workers.
The CJEU held:
- The UK had not acted in breach of Article 45 TFEU, and the deportation against Antonissen was not contrary to community law, because Member States were entitled to determine, under national law, a ‘reasonable’ amount of time for which someone would remain a ‘worker’. Six months was a reasonable amount of time.
The CJEU specifically stated:
- [16] “In that regard, it must be pointed out in the first place that the effectiveness of Article 45 TFEU is secured in so far as Community legislation, or, in its absence the legislation of a Member State gives persons concerned a reasonable time in which to apprise themselves, in the territory of the Member State concerned, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged.” [ECR I-777]
- [21] “in the absence of a Community provision prescribing the period during which Community nationals seeking employment in a Member State may stay there, a period of six months, such as that laid down in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, does not appear in principle to be insufficient to enable the persons concerned to apprise themselves, in the host member state, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged with, and therefore, does not jeopardise the principle of free movement” [ECR I-779].
