Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ACORDÃO VAN DUYN

ACORDÃO VAN DUYN

Ratings: (0)|Views: 47|Likes:
Published by xanoca13
Acordão Van Duyn (DUE)
Acordão Van Duyn (DUE)

More info:

Published by: xanoca13 on Apr 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/15/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Judgment of the Court of 4 December 1974.Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division - UnitedKingdom.Public policy.Case 41-74.European Court reports 1974 Page 01337Greek special edition Page 00537Portuguese special edition Page 00567Spanish special edition Page 00529Swedish special edition Page 00389Finnish special edition Page 00395BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SVhtml html html html html html htmlSummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative partKeywords++++1 . WORKERS - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - DIRECT EFFECT( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48 )2 . ACTS OF AN INSTITUTION - DIRECT EFFECT - DIRECTIVE( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177, ARTICLE 189 )3 . WORKERS - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - RESTRICTIONS - ARTICLE 3 OFDIRECTIVE NO 64/221 OF THE COUNCIL - DIRECT EFFECT
 
4 . COMMUNITY LAW - FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE - DEROGATION - NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY - STRICT INTERPRETATION - DISCRETIONARYPOWER OF NATIONAL AUTHORITIES5 . WORKERS - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - DEROGATION - THREAT TO NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY - NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE -PERSONAL CONDUCT - ASSOCIATION WITH A BODY WHICH IS NOTILLEGAL - ACTIVITIES OF THAT BODY CONSIDERED TO BE SOCIALLYHARMFUL( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 64/221, ARTICLE 3( 1 ))Summary1 . AS THE LIMITATIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENTFOR WORKERS WHICH MEMBER STATES MAY INVOKE ON GROUNDS OFPUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY, OR PUBLIC HEALTH ARE SUBJECT TOTHE CONTROL OF THE COURTS, THE PROVISO IN PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) DOES NOT PREVENT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 48 FROM CONFERRING ONINDIVIDUALS RIGHTS WHICH THEY MAY ENFORCE IN THE NATIONALCOURTS AND WHICH THE LATTER MUST PROTECT .2 . IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BINDING EFFECT ATTRIBUTEDTO A DIRECTIVE BY ARTICLE 189 TO EXCLUDE, IN PRINCIPLE, THEPOSSIBILITY THAT THE OBLIGATION WHICH IT IMPOSES MAY BEINVOKED BY THOSE CONCERNED . IN PARTICULAR, WHERE THECOMMUNITY AUTHORITIES HAVE, BY DIRECTIVES, IMPOSED ON MEMBER STATES THE OBLIGATION TO PURSUE A PARTICULAR COURSE OFCONDUCT, THE USEFUL EFFECT OF SUCH AN ACT WOULD BE WEAKENEDIF INDIVIDUALS WERE PREVENTED FROM RELYING ON IT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS AND IF THE LATTER WERE PREVENTED FROMTAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION AS AN ELEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW .ARTICLE 177, WHICH EMPOWERS NATIONAL COURTS TO REFER TO THECOURT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY AND INTERPRETATIONOF ALL ACTS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, WITHOUTDISTINCTION, IMPLIES FURTHERMORE THAT THESE ACTS MAY BEINVOKED BY INDIVIDUALS IN THE NATIONAL COURTS .IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE IN EVERY CASE WHETHER THE NATURE,GENERAL SCHEME AND WORDING OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION ARECAPABLE OF HAVING DIRECT EFFECTS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEENMEMBER STATES AND INDIVIDUALS .3 . ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 OF 25 FEBRUARY 1964ON THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL MEASURES CONCERNING THEMOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS WHICH AREJUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY OR 
 
PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERS ON INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS WHICH AREENFORCEABLE BY THEM IN THE NATIONAL COURTS OF A MEMBER STATE AND WHICH THE LATTER MUST PROTECT .4 . THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF THECOMMUNITY AND WHERE, IN PARTICULAR, IT IS USED AS AJUSTIFICATION FOR DEROGATING FROM A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OFCOMMUNITY LAW, MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY, SO THAT ITS SCOPECANNOT BE DETERMINED UNILATERALLY BY EACH MEMBER STATEWITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THECOMMUNITY . NEVERTHELESS, THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYINGRECOURSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAY VARY FROM ONECOUNTRY TO ANOTHER AND FROM ONE PERIOD TO ANOTHER, AND IT ISTHEREFORE NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER TO ALLOW THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AN AREA OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE LIMITSIMPOSED BY THE TREATY .5 . ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO64/221 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER STATE,IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, ISENTITLED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AS A MATTER OF PERSONALCONDUCT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED, THE FACT THAT THEINDIVIDUAL IS ASSOCIATED WITH SOME BODY OR ORGANIZATION THEACTIVITIES OF WHICH THE MEMBER STATE CONSIDERS SOCIALLYHARMFUL BUT WHICH ARE NOT UNLAWFUL IN THAT STATE, DESPITETHE FACT THAT NO RESTRICTION IS PLACED UPON NATIONALS OF THESAID MEMBER STATE WHO WISH TO TAKE SIMILAR EMPLOYMENT WITHTHE SAME BODIES OR ORGANIZATIONS .PartiesIN CASE 41/74REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BYTHE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, ENGLAND,FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THATCOURT BETWEENYVONNE VAN DUYNANDHOME OFFICESubject of the case

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->