FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ANS EU FINAL HASBA

Laura is an Italian student studying philosophy at a university in France. She

assures the French authorities that she has sufficient resources as well as
sickness insurance. In order to support herself, Laura does occasional work in a
restaurant. In the course of her studies she becomes very ill, and it turns out
that for the last year or so she has not paid her insurance contributions under the
private hospital insurance policy she had taken out. As a result, the French
authorities refuse to offer her treatment. They claim that, as an Italian citizen,
she is not entitled to state-subsidized healthcare, and advise her to return to
Italy.
Advise Laura.

The law controlling citizenship and the free movement of people constitutes to
be the subject of this inquiry.

In accordance with Article 21, the concept of Union citizenship was adopted. A
French student had been ultimately allowed to receive social security payments
despite initially being rejected due to his nationality in the matter of Grzelczyk
v. Centre Public (2001), which proved that citizenship provides the basis for the
rights of citizens of EU Member States. EU residents who additionally are pursuing
education in school in a different member state are granted the privilege to stay
there under Article 7(c) of Directive 2004/38, provided that they possess adequate
health insurance and do not interfere with the host country's social ordering.
Considering the fact that she is not against Article 7, Laura would be considered
entitled to the same status as French residents while being a student. In Dano
(2014), Ms. Dano failed to receive equal treatment and associated societal
advantages because she did not comply with the Directive's rules for residing. She
lacked the finances needed to support herself as well as her family without
becoming a burden onto the social system of the host country. In order to prevent
individuals from migrating to other countries in search of social privileges,
specific requirements have been put in force. Given that Laura has not paid her
medical insurance premium and does not currently have insurance, she cannot be
considered to be living in accordance with Directive 2004/38 which means that she
currently has no security within Article 7. In view of this, if she is regarded as
a student, the French government would be able to prevent her administration from
acquiring Dano (2014).

Article 45 TEFU:
We will look at Laura's rights in relation to free worker movement under the treaty
along with Directive 2004/38. To determine whether Laura falls under the category
of a "free worker," it is crucial to clarify the term. In the instance of Lawrie-
Blum (1986), the definition of a worker is "during a period of time.. performs
services under the direction of another in return for remuneration." According to
Steymann (1986), the economic element of a worker demonstrates that monetary
compensation is not always in the form of cash. For instance, it is sufficient if
your employment pays you meals as a payment for your services. It was ruled in
Kempt (1986) that money need not be sufficient to support a person's lifestyle. In
this situation, the worker relied on government assistance to support himself or
herself. Employees must be granted the same level of decency and respect as
employees of EU nationals. On certain occasions, Laura is employed by a restaurant.
However, in order to be considered a worker, a person must provide a good or actual
service in exchange for payment; it cannot be merely incidental or marginal, like
it was in the case of Levin (1982) and Kempf (1986). Low maintenance workers were
viewed as specialists under Article 45 in Levin (1982). Being an employee at a
restaurant might be viewed as an economic activity since it ought to be the one.
Workers must satisfy the host country's residency criteria in order to receive
social advantages (social benefits). where Laura is considered to be a worker, she
will then be entitled to the identical amenities given to the French citizens in
addition to state-funded medical care. Employees will receive the same social and
tax benefits as French nationals if they happen to be eligible for these kinds of
advantages. State-sponsored medical treatment could be seen as a social benefit in
light of Cristini (1975), which determined that the right to restricted train cards
constitutes a social benefit. Contrarily, the court will assess if Laura would be
regarded as a worker depending on the facts of the case. This is due to the fact
that her job is not "purely marginal and ancillary." According to the facts, she
was working occasionally rather than partially or full-time employment.

Article 29:
The French government has been asking Laura to make her way back to Italy. The
unrestricted movement of individuals is hindered under Directive 2004/38, thus this
advise may not be the best one. the following arguments for restriction concerning
admission and residence:

first, public policy,

second, and
third Public Health.

An Annexe to Directive 64/221 listed the ailments or impairments that justified

revoking a first-time resident permit. The list includes transmissible illnesses
like syphilis and tuberculosis as well as ailments like ongoing use of drugs or
severe mental distress that may have an effect upon public security or public
policy. However, an occurrence of one of the above illnesses after obtaining a
first permit to reside would not be cause for rejection of renewing the permission
or expulsion. Infections and diseases are not currently listed in the recently
introduced system; instead, Article 29(1) recognises two public health scenarios
that may justify restrictions on freedom of travel.

*WHO has identified an illness with pandemic potential.

*Various infectious or contagious diseases, however only if national hosts are also
subject to restrictions.

If Laura had a serious illness, public health would have been the reason to have
her removed according to the facts of the situation. However, infectious and
contagious illnesses which have the potential to start an epidemic, are the
principal illnesses that can justify a restriction on movement. If this infection
develops after a period of residence, expulsion is not justified under Article 29
of Directive 2004/38 at that time. In this manner, Laura will not be expelled from
France unless these requirements are fulfilled. Furthermore, these sanctions should
be commensurate with the problem at hand; removals for minor administrative
infractions are frequently noted to be disproportionate punishments.

In light of the previously mentioned facts, Laura can be considered to not be

living in compliance with the directive if the French authorities consider her to
be a student. This is due to the fact that she lacks medical insurance. The French
officials could be justified in their decision to forbid her from receiving the
social benefit of the sponsored by the state medical care by claiming the Dano case
as justification for their actions. However, Laura can argue that she is a worker,
allowing her to argue that she is entitled to the same protection as French
workers, as seen in the situations of Levin and Cristini. She is therefore eligible
for the state-funded medical care. She is able to do this because of her EU
citizenship and her right to freedom of movement, which entitles her to the same
social and tax benefits as native workers. The French government's recommendation
that Laura returned to Italy could be contested. Therefore specific requirements
outlined in Article 29 of the 2004/38 Directive must be satisfied in order for it
to be withdrawn.