FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF WORKERS

Authors

  • Vlatka Šokec Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Law Osijek
  • Ana Elena Troha Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Law Osijek

Keywords:

freedom of movement of workers, common market, worker, restriction of the freedom of movement, residence

Abstract

Freedom of movement for workers is one of the four freedoms that are guaranteed by primary and secondary legislation of the European Union. The main purpose of establishing the common market is economical development through improving living standards in EU territory. To ensure the freedom of movement for workers, it is essential that member states are guided by the principle of equal treatment, the supply-demand balance mechanism and the approach to employment, with the application of legislation and case law. Extensive case law indicates that there are problems in interpreting provisions and terms, but they are sought to be resolved through binding judgments of the Court. That is how the Court has gradually defined who comes under the term of a worker for the purpose of extended and better protection. Freedom of movement for workers is not absolute, it is relative, meaning that it can be subject to restrictions that need to be justified by reasons of public order, public security, or public health. Member states have been differently interpreting when something presented a threat, and through its different case-law the Court has gradually expanded the reach of freedom of movement and defined its limitation more precisely, in order to prevent the abuse of restriction by the Member States. Besides that, the Directive 2004/38/EC grants workers and members of their families a residence and prescribes three types of residence: residence for up to three months, the residence of three months to five years, and permanent residence. In order to save the unity of a family, the Directive greatly contributes to the position of a worker and their family, taking into account the circumstances of dependence, such as financial or physical dependence. It can be concluded that the movement of workers has its legal, financial, and sociological aspects and that their combination justifies the establishment of a single market.

References

Knjige i članci

Arbutina, Hrvoje, Porezni izdaci u kontekstu presuda Europskog suda: aspekti oporezivanja dohotka i dobiti, Zbornik radova s konferencije „Skrivena javna potrošnja“, Institut za javne financije, Zagreb, 2012., str. 197. – 206.

Bačić, Petar; Sarić, Ivan, Aktivizam Europskog suda kroz presude o slobodi kretanja radnika, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, god. 51, br. 1, 2014., str. 27. – 44.

Bilić, Andrijana, Diskriminacija u Europskom radnom pravu, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, god. 44, br. 3–4, 2007., str. 557. – 572.

Binder, John J., The effects of the Bosman Ruling on National and Club Teams in Europe, Journal of Sports Economics. Vol. 13, no. 2, 2012., str. 107. – 129.

Gregurev, Ivana; Ceronja, Petar, Opoziv imenovanja trudne članice uprave društava kapitala – spolna diskriminacija, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Vol. 61, No. 6, 2011., str. 1881. – 1919.

Kandžija, Vinko; Cvečić, Igor, Ekonomika i politika Europske unije, Ekonomski fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Rijeka, 2011.

Novak, Stjepan, Dopustiva ograničenja slobode kretanja radnika u interpretaciji Suda Europske unije, Zagrebačka pravna revija, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2013., str. 213. – 236.

Peročević, Katarina, Pojam „radnika“ u pravu Europske unije, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2017., str. 319. – 343.

Scherr, Kathrin Maria, The Principle of State Liability for Judicial Breaches , The case Gerhard Kobler v. Austria under European Community law and from a comparative national law perspective, doktorska disertacija, European University Institute – Department of Law. Florence, 2008. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/13165/2008_Scherr_AuthorVersion.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.

Propisi i ostali akti EU-a

Direktiva 2004/38/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2004. godine o pravu građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji na slobodno kretanje i boravište na području države članice kojom se izmjenjuje Uredba (EEZ) br. 1612/68 i stavljaju izvan snage direktive 64/221/EEZ, 68/360/EEZ, 72/194/EEZ, 73/148/EEZ, 75/34/EEZ, 75/35/EEZ, 90/364/EEZ, 90/365/EEZ i 93/96/EEZ, SL L 158, 30. travnja 2004., str. 77. – 123., posebno izdanje na hrvatskom: poglavlje 5, svezak 2, str. 42. – 55.

Pročišćene verzije Ugovora o Europskoj uniji i Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije Ugovor o Europskoj uniji (pročišćena verzija), SL C 202, 7. lipnja 2016., str. 1. – 388.

Uredba (EU) br. 492/2011 Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. travnja 2011. o slobodi kretanja radnika u Uniji, SL L 141, 27. svibnja 2011., str. 1. – 12., posebno izdanje na hrvatskom: poglavlje 5, svezak 2, str. 264. – 275.

Komunikacija Komisije, COVID-19 Smjernice o ostvarivanju slobodnog kretanja radnika (2020/C 102 I/03), SL C 102I , 30. ožujka 2020., str. 12. – 14.

Praksa suda EU-a

Presuda Suda od 4. prosinca 1974., Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office, C-41/74.

Presuda Suda od 27. listopada 1977., Regina protiv Pierre Bouchereau, C-30/77.

Presuda Suda od 23. ožujka 1982., D. M. Levin protiv Staatssecretaris van Justitie C-53/81.

Presuda Suda EU-a od 3. srpnja 1986., Deborah Lawrie-Blum protiv pokrajine Baden-Württemberg. C-66/85.

Presuda Suda od 28. studenoga 1989., Anita Groener protiv Minister for Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee. C-379/87.

Presuda Suda od 26. veljače 1991., The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, C-292/89.

Presuda Suda od 14. veljače 1995., Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt protiv Roland Schumacker C-279/93.

Presuda Suda od 15. prosinca 1995,. Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL i dr. protiv Jean-Marca Bosmana i dr. C-415/93.

Presuda Suda od 9. ožujka 2000., Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, C-355/98.

Presuda Suda od 30. rujna 2003., Gerhard Köbler protiv Republike Austrije, C-224/01.

Presuda Suda od 11. studenoga 2010. Dita Danos protiv LKB Lizings SIA, C-232/09.

Presuda Suda od 11. studenoga 2021. M. G. protiv Dublin City Council, C-214/20.

Mrežni izvori

EURES-ove usluge, https://ec.europa.eu/eures/public/eures-services_hr, pristupljeno 16. prosinca 2021.

Godišnje izvješće o radu unutar EU, Mobilnost 2020. Luksemburg: Ured za publikacije Europske unije, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9877, pristupljeno 6. siječnja 2022.

HZZ EURES, Informacije o mobilnosti u kontekstu pandemije COVID-19, https://www.hzz.hr/content/vazne-info/HZZ-EURES-MOBILNOST-COVID-19.pdf, pristupljeno 8. siječnja 2022.

Europski parlament, Informativni članci o europskoj uniji, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/hr/sheet/1/prvi-ugovori, pristupljeno 6. travnja 2022.

Informativni članci o Europskoj Uniji, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/hr/sheet/79/povijest-ekonomske-i-monetarne-unije, pristupljeno 6. travnja 2022.

Sud EU-a, Priopćenje za medije br. 201/21 u Luxembourgu 11. studenoga 2021. Presuda suda u predmetu C-214/20, Sud pojašnjava doseg pojma „radno vrijeme” u odnosu na dežurstvo u stanju pripravnosti, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-11/cp210201hr.pdf, pristupljeno 9. siječnja 2022.

Published

2022-07-22

How to Cite

Šokec, V., & Troha, A. E. (2022). FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF WORKERS. Paragraf, 6(1), 133–152. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/paragraf/article/view/22785

Issue

Section

Professional paper