INTRODUCTION TO DISCRIMINATION LAW----Article

2 TEU sayes the union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail-Article 19 TFEU empowers the institutions to pass directives prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of: sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation.--The Charter of Fundamental Rights also contains provisions relating to discrimination, which go further than the Treaty and Directives- Article 20 Everyone is equal before the law-Article 21 discrimination on:sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited--Article 22 the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity(language) -Article 23 Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex. -SEX DISCRIMINATION-Article 2 TEU above refers to equality between men and women -Article 3(3) TEU (was 2) states that the union shall.. combat social exclusion and discrimination and shall promote justice and protection, equality between women and men..-Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights above also emphasises equality between the sexes--Equal PayArticle 157(1) TFEU provides that each member state shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied-- Defrenne v Sabena (no 2) 1975 157. It established that article 157 has vertical and horizontal direct effect- Article 157(2) states that pay means the ordinary or basic wage or salary and any other consideration whether in cash or in kind which the worker receives directly or indirectly in respect of employment from his employer (repeated in article 2(1)(e) Directive 2006/54)--It goes on to state that pay for the same work at piece rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement and pay for the same work at time rates shall be the same for the same job Chapter 1 of Directive 2006/54 now deals with pay-What is pay ? consider the following:Garland v BREL 1982 train family--Ingrid Rinner-Kuhn v FWW Spezial-Gebaudereiningung 1989 sick pay (as part of a statutory scheme)--Kowalska v Hamburg 1989 severance grant--Seymour-Smith and Perez 1997 unfair dismissal and redundancy payments
DIRECTIVE 79/7 allowed states to determine the age at which people can access old age and retirement pensions and other benefits which was interpreted by the states to mean that discrimination was permitted in relation to pensions. BARBER V GRE 1988 contractual private pension schemes constitute pay, Barber made redundant at 52 if he was a woman would have been able to access pension scheme. TEN OEVER 1991 ART 157 covers payments made to pension holder survivors. Commission v Greece 2007 established the compulsory state pension is outside the scope of ART 157. Neath v Hugh Steeper 1991

amounts based on actuarial factors such as life expectancy which differ according to sex are not covered by article 157 ---- The Basis of Comparison It is possible to compare ones pay with a current colleague or predecessor Macarthys v Smith 1979----It is possible to compare ones pay with that of a person doing equal work or work of equal value ----Equal work means the same work or jobs with a high degree of similarity ----Doing the same job in a different place or at a different time may mean it is not equal work ---Work of equal value requires an evaluation of the jobs ----It is possible to claim equal pay if your work is of higher value Murphy An Bord Telecom Eireann 1986 BASIS OF COMPARISON one can compare ones pay with a current colleague or predecessor Macarthys v Smith
1979 --It is possible to compare ones pay with that of a person doing equal work or work of equal value equal work or same work or jobs with a high degree of similarity. Doing the same job in a different place or at a different time may mean it is not equal work (day/night). Work of equal value requires an evaluation of the jobs it is possible to claim equal pay if your work is of higher value. MURPHY AN BORD TELECOM EIREANN 1986 vast majority of workers

--Forms of Discrimination-Direct discrimination is where one person is treated less favourably on the grounds of sex, than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation article 2(1)(a) Directive 2006/54-Indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary article 2(1)(b) Directive 2006/54
were women, skilled work concerning making telephone equipment, one man cleaner paid more, entitled to claim. BILKA KAUFAUS V WEBER VON HARTZ 1984 different treatment for full/part time workers is indirectly discriminating against women full time workers were entitled to automatic pension paid by employer/ part time staff had to serve for 15 years. also

Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority 1992 on justifications--Where pay is based on a job classification scheme, it must be based on the same criteria for men and women and drawn up so as to exclude any discrimination on the ground of sex article 4 Directive 2006/54 p-The remedies and enforcement procedures have been consolidated into Directive 2006/54---Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation-The Equal Treatment Directive 1976 extended the prohibition against discrimination on the ground of sex to other aspects of the employment relationship.- Directive amended in 2002 to include harassment as a form of discrimination.-The law can currently be found in Directive 2006/54 Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (The Recast Directive)-Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/54 prohibits direct and

indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in the private or public sectors, including public bodies in relation to: conditions for access to employment, self-employment or to occupations, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion access to vocational guidance and training, retraining and practical work experience--employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay-membership/involvement in trade unions--The definitions of direct and indirect discrimination are indicated above (for equal pay). is where unwanted conduct related to the sex of a person occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment article 2(1)(c)-Sexual harassment is where any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular, when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment article 2(1)(d)---Article 2 indicates that discrimination includes: harassment, sexual harassment and any less favourable treatment based on a persons rejection or submission to such conduct; an instruction to discriminate against a person on the ground of sex; any less favourable treatment relating to pregnancy or maternity leave (within the meaning of Directive 92/85)----DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF SEX gender reassignment P V S CORNWALL COUNTY 1994.
Sexual orientation Grant v South West Trains 1996 free travel to family mebers of workers not for same sex couples = not sex discrimination. Dekker v VJM 1988 refused to hire pregnant women, ART 2 states this is covered. Marshall v Southampton AHA 1986 retirement ages for men and women is discrimination. Comission v France 1986 special benefits for women unconnected to pregnancy is discrimination. ARTICLE 14(2) exemption where the sex of a worker is genunine and determining occupational requirement. KREIL V GERMANY 1998 (general ban on women in military positions unsuccessful). Sirdar v The army board 1997 successful cook in royal marines/had to serve on front line couldnt be a woman. Comission v UK 1982 restriction on men in midwifery. ART 157 ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any member state from maintaining or adopting measures providing specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers. ART 23 CHARTER measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the underrepresented sex are permitted. Kalanke 1993- where everything is equal positive discrimination is not permitted. Marschall v Land Nordhein Westfalen 1995 teaching positions/equally suitable candidates- give to underrepresented sex unless something tips its --- Enforcement

and Remedies- ARTICLE 19- burden of proof lies with employer. Von Colson 1983- member states must provide adequate compensation- Coote v Granada 1997
broad, compensation not just money. Other directives 79/7 social security. 97/81- part time workers. 2010/41 equal treatment for self employed men and women. 2010/18 parental leave. 92/85 pregnant workers. 2004/13 equality with men and women to access supply of goods/services. ---OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION---Article 19 TFEU enabled
the EU to pass directives on other forms of discrimination i.e. race, ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief ---- Race and Ethnic Origin--The Equal Treatment irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin Directive 2000/43 applies the equal treatment principle to persons regardless of racial or ethnic origin--It applies to employment, social protection, education and access to public goods and services including housing ( article 3(1))--The directive prohibits direct discrimination (article 2(2)), indirect discrimination (article 2(2)), harassment (article 2(3)) and instructing someone to discriminate (article 2(4)) - same definitions as for sex discrimination Firma Feryn 2007 case involved a business in Belgium which advertised for workers but said no foreigners or workers even though no one brought the case forward it was the Belgium government which did -Member states can exclude occupations based on genuine and determining occupational requirements article 4-Member states are allowed to take action to support the achievement of equality in practice article 5-Member states are required to establish a body to promote equal treatment and to combat discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnicity article 13---The remedies similar sex discrimination Religion, Disability, Age and Sexual Orientation--The Framework Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation 2000 (the Horizontal Framework Directive) extends the prohibition against discrimination to the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation in relation to employment and occupation-article 3 for the scope of the directive.-It does not cover access to services, social protection etc. This was proposed in 2008 but was not enacted. Same as above article 2(2)to2(4)---Religion or Belief-No EU cases but see Eweida and others v UK 2013 (ECHR) in this case it involved BA airhosts discriminated on religion not allowed to wear cross and the case of Shirley Chaplin a nurse who wore a cross . BA = ppl won , Nurse =Lost ----=Disability--Article 5 reasonable accommodation for disabled persons--Sonia Navas 2005 dismissal due to sickness fired due the sickness does not mean disabled ----Coleman v Attridge Law and another 2008 discrimination against a careerit was said that the directive includes the if the worker is carer of disabled. Age--Article 6 provides justifications for differences of treatment on grounds of age Mangold 2004 change of conditions for older workers----Age Concern v Secretary of State for BERR 2009 compulsory retirement-Petersen 2008 compulsory retirement a case involve a dentist being forced to retire due to health and safely --Wolf 2008 maximum age for the recruitment of fire-fighters is 30 and employees above 30 do less dangerous jobs --Kukukdeveci 2007 discrimination against younger workers Sexual Orientation--Tadao Maruka v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Buhnen 2006 and Romer 2011 pension benefits for same sex couples --Note also the rights of same sex couples referred to in Eweida and others v UK 2013--Exemptions--Member states can exclude occupations based on genuine and determining occupational requirements article 4(1)--In relation to religion there is a special exemption for access to employment in religious organisations article 4(2)--Member states are allowed to take action to support the achievement of equality in practice article 7--The remedies available are similar to those relating to sex discrimination Chapter II-----OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION- ARTICLE 19 enabled the EU to pass directives on other forms of discrimination race, ethnic origin, disability, age,

sexual orientation, religion/belief. Race/ETHNIC ORIGIN The Equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin DIRECTIVE 2000/43- equal treatment principle regardless of race/ethnic origin. Covers employment, social protection, education, access to public goods/services/housing ART 3(1). Prohibits direct/indirect discrimination ART 2(2), harassment ART2(3), and instructing someone to discriminate ART 2(4). ----ARTICLE 4- can exclude occupations based on genuine and determining occupational requirements. ARTICLE 5 member states are allowed to take action to support the achievement of quality in practice. ARTICLE 13 member states are required to establish a body to promote equal treatment and to combat discrimination on grounds of race/ethnicity. CHAPTER II Remedies The Framework DIRECTIVE on equal treatment in employment and occupation 2000 prohibits discrimination to the grounds of religion/belief/disability/age/sexual orientation in relation to employment/occupation. ARTICLE 3 from sex discrimation covers the scope. DOES not cover access to services/social protection. Prohibits direct/indirect discrimination ART 2(2), harassment ART2(3), and instructing someone to discriminate ART 2(4).----DISABILTY ARTICLE 5 accommodation for disabled persons/ SONIA NAVAS 2005 Dismissal due to sickness/ COLEMAN V ATTRIDGE LAW AND ANOTHER 2008 discrimination against a carer (forced out of employment because of caring duties for a baby born with disability). AGE ARTICLE 6 Mangold 2004/ Age concern v Secetary of state for BERR 2009/ Petersen 2008/ Woolf 2008/ Kukukdeveci 2007. Sexual orientation Tadao Maruka v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Buhnen 2006 and Romer 2011 pension benefits for same sex couples and EWEIDA. ARTICLE 4(1) member states can exclude occupations based on genuine and determining occupational requirements. ARTICLE 4(2) in relation to religion there is a special exception for access to employment in religious organisations. ARTICLE 7 member states are allowed to take action to support the achievement of equality in practice. FREE MOVEMENT OF PPl-Article 20(1) TFEU provides that citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to an not replace national citizenship - Article 20(2) provides that EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states -Article 20(2) also indicates that citizens have the right to vote and stand in elections, diplomatic protection, petition to the European Parliament -The Basic principle of free movement law is the prohibition against discrimination on the ground of nationality article 18 TFEU-Direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited, although indirect discrimination can be objectively justified The key treaty articles :Article 45(1) TFEU provides that freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union-Article 45(2) TFEU states that such freedom shall entail the abolition of discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member states as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment-Article 49 TFEU provides that restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a member state in the territory of another member state shall be prohibited-It goes on to state that Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies and firmsunder the conditions laid down for its own nationals -Article 56 TFEU states that restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of member states who are established in member states other than that of the person for whom the services are intended- Article 57 TFEU states that services shall be considered services. When they are provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons-It goes on to state that services shall in particular include activities of an industrial character, commercial character, activities of craftsmen and of the professions---EXIT/ENTRY/RESIDENCE- ART 4/5 DIRECTIVE 2004/38 right of citizens of the union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member state provide a right of exit and entry for EUs. ART 6- right of residence for up to 3 months for EU citizens and their family. ART 24- no obligation for states to provide social assistance during stay (lebon 1985Collins 2002 EC indicated that states can deny EU citizens certain benefits if there is no link between them and the host state. -The citizen and his/her family cannot be expelled if s/he is genuinely seeking work and has a genuine chance of being engaged Article 14(4)(b) -Under article 7 a right of residence for more than three months is only provided if an EU citizen is a worker or self employed in the host state, self supporting, a student or the person is a family member of an EU citizen-See Antonissen 1989 on deportation-Under article 8 the host state can require the EU citizen (and his/her family) to register with the authorities-All Union citizens residing in the host

state are entitled to equal treatment with nationals article 24 Directive 2004/38--WORKERS Levin v Minister of Justice 1981 concept of worker is defined by EU not member states/ Lawrie Blum v Land Baden-Wurttemburg 1985 a worker performs a service for and under the direction of another for remuneration relationship of subordination trainee teacher on little pay Germany tried to expel under not being a worker/rejected Lebon 1985 looking for work doesnt make you a worker work must be real/genuine of economic nature. Part time work Kempf v Minister of Justice 1985 part time music teacher 12hrs is genuine worker. Payment in kind Steymann v Minister of Justice 1987 German man living in religious community doing odds and sods in return of board and lodge) Under article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 IF: temporarily unemployemd due to accident/illness Hoekstra v BBDA 1963 medical expenses involving equal treatment of German woman classed as worker becase she was involuntarily unemployed and potential to work again. Vouluntarily uneplyed having been employed for more than 1 year and registered as job seeker. Involuntarily unemployed after completing a fixed term contract of less than 1 year worker status retained for 6 months. Embarks on vocational training/unless unvoluntarily unemployed/retained if training related to previous employment (Lair v Universitat Hanover 1988).-- Rights Granted to EU Citizens Seeking Work / Working in Another StateArticle 1 of Regulation 1612/68 states that any national of a member state has the right to take up activity as an employed person in another member state in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that state- Article 3(1) - linguistic requirements are permitted Groener v Minister of education 1987- art teacher had to be able to speak irish in order to preserve language. ART 4 national laws retricting the number of foreign nationals employed within the state cannot apply to EU NATIONALS. Commission v France 1973 (seamen). -Article 5 - EU nationals be given the same assistance as nationals seeking employment -Rights Granted to EU Workers under Regulation 1612/68 - Equal Treatment in relation to employment issues article 7(1) Sotgui v Deutsche Bundespost 1973 Italian working in german post office working away from base allowance, non nationals paid less than nationals separation allowance-The same tax and social benefits as nationals article 7(2) Fiorini v SNCF 1975 REDUCED RAILFARES FOR FAMILY MEBERS- ITALIAN WORKING FOR FRENCH RAILWAYS ON RETIREMENT FRENCH STILL ALOOWS ITALIANS NOT -The same access to training as national workers article 7(3)-Equal treatment in relation to membership of trade unions article 8-Equal treatment in relation to housing article 9The Public Service Proviso-Article 45(4) TFEU states that the provisions of article 45 do not apply to employment in the public service.-Member states may discriminate on the grounds of nationality in relation to access to public service posts that involve internal or external security of the state, national interests etc.-Commission v Belgium (Public Employees) 1979electricians, plumbers .-Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost 1973 Non-nationals working for the German postal service were paid less than nationals. - --ESTABLISHMENT self employed in another state. Jany 1999 relationship must not be one of subordination. Factortame 1989- fixed establishment in another member state for an indefinite period/continuity/permnance in host state. ART49 prohibits freedom of establishment restrictions. Steinhauser v City of Biarritz 1984 no direct discrimination, German artist wanted to rent French hut French said only for French. ART49- must comply with conditions set down for own nationals. Requirements must no indirectly discriminate/ Klopp1984 resident requirement is far easier for nationals to comply with. Rule of reason national requirements will be permissible if they are proportionate and meet legitimate aim. ART51applied--Rights Granted to Workers and Established Persons-Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 equal treatment with nationals (and article 18 of the treaty)-Under article 7 of the Directive a right of residence for more than three months is granted to workers, the self employed (the self supporting and students)-Article 16(1) states that EU citizens have a right of permanent residence after 5 years -Article 17(1) right to reside permanently before completion of the 5 year residence requirement if the person retired at state retirement age having worked in the host state for 12 months beforehand and lived there for three years ---If the worker / self-employed person stopped work due to incapacity prior to retirement age permanent residence is acquired if the person resided in the host state for 2 years - The two year residence requirement does not apply if the incapacity resulted from an accident at work or occupational illness...Once the right to remain has been established, equal treatment should be granted - Fiorini v SNCF 1975 reduced rail fares for large families----FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES ART56 services in on state by a person established in another HM customs and excise v Schindler 1992- Dutch agents of german lottery asking uk citizens to play. More temporary than establishment, restrictions on freedom to provide services is prohibited by ART56. Providers must comply with conditions for nationals conditions may constitute indirect discrimination if they are more difficult for business established in other countries can be justified. Van Binsbergen 1977/residence requirement for lawyers no justification. Not all professional rules and regs will apply to a business providing a service in another member state as they will be subject to reg more than once must be justified by imperative reasons/public interest/proportionate. Providers have right to reside duration of service/equal treatment/family members ART24 DIRECTIVE 2004/38. ART56/protects recipients of services Comission v Spain1993 entrance fee for museusms for everyone who isnt Spanish. -RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS -The refusal of a host state to recognise qualifications obtained in another state can be an obstacle to the free movement and can breach article 45, 49, 56 Broekmeulen v Committee for General Medical Practitioners 1981, Thieffry v Paris Bar Council 1977 -As a consequence many directives were adopted requiring the recognition of qualifications for specific professions. -The EU changed it approach in 1989 when it adopted the Mutual Recognition of Diplomas Directive 1989 which applied to professions regulated by law, where a higher education diploma and 3 years post-secondary education is required -This has now been replaced by Directive 2005/36-----THE FAMILY=When an EU citizen moves to another member state s/he is entitled to be accompanied by his/her family and they are entitled to certain rights-=Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38 defines family as:-the spouse, the partner with whom the citizen has contracted a registered paternship, direct descendants under 21 or dependant and those of partner, dependant direct relatives in the ascending line--There is no nationality requirement article 6(2) and 7(2) Diatta v Land Berlin 1983--Non-EU nationals will have to provide additional documentation article 5(2)-Spouses and Partners-A spouse is a person married to the EU national Netherlands v Reed 1985-The member state can determine if the marriage is real article 35----An unmarried cohabitant is not family will be allowed if- the partner with whom the union citizen has a durable relationship duly attested- article 3(2)(b) --The member state must undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to such persons--Separated spouses are still considered family Diatta v Land Berlin 1983--Divorced spouses are not technically family but if s/he is an EU national s/he will retain the right of residence after divorce/termination of registered partnership (article 13(1)) --If the divorced spouse/registered partner is not an EU national s/he will retain the right of residence under article 13(2) if: A)the marriage/partnership lasted 3 years including one in the host statea -B)the non-EU national has custody of a minor child -- C)the non-EU national has access to a minor child -D)special circumstances apply e.g. domestic violence ee.g Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept. 2002 . Registered partners are only treated as family if the host state has introduced registered partnership legislation / treats partners as equivalent to marriageIf the host state has not done so the entry and residence of a registered partner would have to be facilitated under article 3(2)(b) see above--Descendants and Dependents Descendants under 21 or dependent and those of the spouse/registered partner are family - see Baumbast 2002 on step children---Dependant direct relatives in the ascending line of the EU national or his or her spouse are classed as family. Other Relatives Article 3(2) states that member states must facilitate the entry and residence of other family members not falling within the definition of the family if in the country from which they have come they are dependents or members of the same household or serious health grounds require the personal care of the family member--As explained above in relation to cohabitants, host states would have to justify a refusal---Rights of Family Members--The right of the family member is often dependent upon the rights of the EU national that s/he has accompanied i.e. initial right of residence of up to 3 months (article 6) and a right of residence for more than three months if family of a worker, self employed person or self-supporting person (article 7)--Article 12(1) family members who are EU nationals do not lose their right of residence if the EU national dies or leaves the host state -Article 12(2) family members who are not EU nationals do not lose their right of residence if the EU national dies if they have lived in the host state for 1 year--Article 12(3) children of the worker who are in education (and the parent who looks after them) do not lose their right of residence if the worker leaves the host state see Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept. 2002 .--Article 16(1), 16(2) and 18 family members who have resided legally in the host state for 5 years have a right of permanent residence-Article 17(3) - A right of permanent residence can be obtained by family members before completion of 5 years residence if the worker/self employed person has retired and acquired a right of permanent residence under article 17(1)--Article 17(4) - If the worker/self employed person dies while still working, but before acquiring permanent residence, family members acquire the right of permanent residence if the worker / self employed person had resided continuously for 2 years or death resulted from an accident at work or occupational disease or the surviving spouse lost the nationality of that state due to marriage to the worker/self employed person ---Article 23 irrespective of nationality family members with a right of residence shall be entitled to take up employment or self employment Gul 1985--Children are entitled to the same treatment as nationals in relation to state education under article 12 Regulation 1612/68 .--This has been interpreted widely to cover children over the age of 21 in relation to university education Gaal 1994--A right to education was claimed by a spouse in Forcheri v Belgium 1983 based on article 18 (was 12) of the Treaty-RESTRICTIONS ON ENTRY AND RESIDENCE-The treaty indicates that member states may restrict entry and residence on the basis of Public Policy, Public Security and Public Health.-Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 deals with derogations and applies to free movement of workers, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services-Article 27(1) - The measures cannot be used to achieve economic goals-Article 15 (2) - The expiry of an ID card/passport does not justify expulsion Pieck 1979 -Failing to report to the authorities cannot justify expulsion Watson v Belman 1975--Public Health-Article 29 the only diseases justify restrictions are those with epidemic potential (as defined by WHO) and other infectious diseases or contagious parasitic diseases if they are the subject of protection provisions applying to nationals of the host state.-Article 29(2) - diseases occurring after 3 months of arriving shall not justify expulsion-Article 29(3) states can require individuals to undergo a medical examination if there are serious indications that one is necessary within 3 months of arrival--Public Policy and Security--Article 27(2) Article 27(2) Decisions must proportionality + exclusively personal conduct of the individual. Previous convictions will not constitute grounds for taking measures. The personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.Van Duyn v Home Office 1974 - the conduct need not be illegal to justify restrictions, but they must be sufficiently harmful and constitute a threat -Article 27(3) allows a host state to check criminal records within 3 months of arrival --If a person is convicted in the host state article 33(1) indicates that an expulsion order cannot be an automatic penalty for the conviction-- In R v Bouchereau 1977 The Court stated that the court/authorities should take into account: the nature and gravity of the offence, when the offence was committed, whether the individual reoffended or is likely to, whether there is a present risk. Bonsignore v Kolh 1975 deportation for firearms offence to deter other immigrants. Olazabal 2001 deportation for terrorist offences. Donatella Calfa 1996 automatic deportation and life ban. In Jipa 2007 - the European Court indicated that a state cannot justify an expulsion simply on the basis of a previous expulsion--Article 28(1) - states must take into account duration of residence, age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration and links with country of origin this implements the decision of the European Court in Orfanopoulos & Oliveri 2004---Article 28(2) states may not take expulsion decisions against union citizens and their families who have the right of permanent residence except on serious grounds of public policy and security--Article 28(3) if the EU citizen has resided in the host state for 10 years or is a minor an expulsion decision may not be taken unless it is based on imperative grounds of public security---Procedural Matters--Article 30(1) persons shall be notified of any decision in writing and under article 30(2) persons shall be informed of the ground on which the decision is based----Article 30(3) notification shall specify the authority with which to lodge an appeal, the time limits for the appeal and the

time allowed for the person to leave. The time allowed should not be less than 1 month unless urgent --Article 31(1) access to judicial and where appropriate administrative redress--Article 31(2) if an appeal against an expulsion decision is accompanied by an application for an interim order to suspend enforcement of the expulsion, the applicant shall not normally be removed until the interim order has been decided--Article 31(3) can challenge the legality of the decision and the facts and circumstances on which the decision is based. The appeal can ensure that the decision is not disproportionate-The body hearing an appeal must be independent of the authority ordering the expulsion R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Gallagher 1994-Article 32 a person can apply for an exclusion order to be lifted after a reasonable period of time and in any event after 3 years by arguing that a material change of circumstance has occurred--Article 33(2) if an expulsion order is enforced more than 2 years after it was issued the member state must check whether there has been any material change.