Free movement of people, discrimination on the grounds of nationality, Essay

Free movement of people, discrimination on the grounds of contentity, the legitimacy of an EU regulation - Essay ExampleThe researcher renders that article 45 of the amalgamate version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) covers the drop off movement of workers within the European Union. Essentially, the a make up to emancipation of workers of EU nationals within member states shall be unattackabled within the European Union. The freedom of movement of workers contained in Article 45 is thus exemplified and regulated by virtue of Regulation error correction code 1612/68 which confers upon EU workers the right to have family members pillow with him/her when working in another member stae. unitedly this regulatory framework as applied the European Courts means that Freedom of movement of EU nationals in and of itself means that all obstacles to the freedom of movement must be eliminated. Thus, the EU law regulating the free movement of workers confers upon Rodger, an EU national to work freely within the EU and he should be secure in that right in that all obstacles to this right should be removed. It appears that the main obstacle to Rodgers right to work freely within the EU is the immigration status of his wife Jaunita, who is a non-Member national (Columbian). Rodger who has had difficulties obtaining residential status for Jaunita in England has obtained an entry visa for her in the Netherlands where he has taken up work at a university there. Under the family reunification principle, Rodgers has the right to now return to England with his non-member state wife. It was held in C-370/90 Singh 1992 that a member state could not apply its national immigration laws to a case where an individual national of one member state shaped his or her right to the free movement of workers. If this were the case, EU nationals would not exercise the right to free movement of workers for fear that they could not return to the home state wit h their families.5 It therefore follows that patch England could have rejected Rodgers application for a residency permit for his foreign spouse initially, England cannot enlistment Rodger going to another member state to work, obtaining a residence permit for Jaunita and returning to England with the right to inhabit to have Jaunita residing with him in England.6 By exercising the right to the free movement of workers within the EU, Rodger is entitled to the protective cover conferred upon him under EU law and with that comes the right to the protection of his private and family life.7 At the end of the day, once a EU citizen exercises the right to the free movement of workers under Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, they will have the rights of residence and employment in the host member state continue in the home state upon return.8 It has to a fault been held that once an EU national exercises the right to the free movement of workers within the EU, his/her spouse, includin g non-member state spouses have the right to work in the host state.9 Based on the authorities discussed, it is concluded that Rodger has the right to have Jaunita reside with him in the Netherlands. Jaunita also has the right to work in the Netherlands as a dependent on Rodger. Moreover, establish on the family reunification principle, Jaunita and Rodger may return to England with Jaunita continuing to exercise the right to reside with Rodger and work, rights transferred from the host state to the home state under Community law relative to the free movement of workers. 2. Discrimination on the Grounds of Nationality Juanita and Rodger have the right to the protection accorded all individuals within the EU under the non-discrimination principle denotative in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,