Levin v. Staatssecretaris, [1982] ECR 1035

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Elena, a Greek national, relocated to Spain to explore part-time employment opportunities in the hospitality sector. She found work as a hotel concierge for 15 hours weekly and earns below the Spanish minimum subsistence level. Nonetheless, Elena contends her activities are genuine and effective rather than marginal. The local authorities question her limited income and its implications for her residency status. Elena seeks recognition of her right to remain in Spain under EU free movement principles.


Which of the following best reflects the principle established by the Court of Justice for individuals earning below subsistence level but performing genuine economic activities?

Introduction

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 53/81 [1982] ECR 1035, significantly impacted the interpretation of "worker" under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This landmark case established a broad definition of "worker," covering part-time employment and work yielding income below the subsistence level. The Court determined that the essential characteristic of a worker is the performance of services for another person under the direction of that person, in return for remuneration. The ECJ rejected national criteria based solely on minimum income or working hours, emphasizing the objective criteria of a genuine and effective economic activity. The judgment requires member states to refrain from imposing conditions on the right of free movement based on the perceived economic value of the work.

The Facts of the Case

Ms. Levin, a British national, resided in the Netherlands with her husband. She held a part-time job with income below the Dutch minimum subsistence level. The Dutch authorities refused her a residence permit as she was deemed not to be a "worker" under the applicable regulations. Ms. Levin challenged this decision, arguing it infringed upon her right to free movement under what is now Article 45 TFEU.

The ECJ's Interpretation of "Worker"

The ECJ ruled against the Dutch authorities, holding that the concept of "worker" must be given a Community meaning. The Court established that a person is considered a "worker" if they perform services for and under the direction of another person in return for remuneration. The Court noted that the nature and extent of the employment relationship are irrelevant as long as the activity is genuine and effective, not merely marginal or ancillary. Importantly, the Court determined that neither the level of remuneration nor the number of hours worked could be used to exclude a person from the definition of "worker". This approach ensures that individuals engaged in part-time or low-paying work are still afforded the protection of Article 45 TFEU.

Implications for Part-Time and Low-Paid Workers

The Levin judgment has major implications for part-time and low-paid workers across the European Union. By defining "worker" broadly, the Court affirmed that the right to free movement extends to individuals seeking all forms of employment, regardless of their income or working hours. This decision prevents member states from excluding individuals based on subjective assessments of economic contribution. The ruling clarifies that the focus should be on the existence of a genuine employment relationship, not the perceived economic benefit derived from the work. This approach ensures a consistent and equitable application of free movement rights across the EU.

The Principle of Effectiveness and the Prevention of Abuse

The ECJ in Levin stressed the importance of preventing abuse of the right of free movement. While affirming a broad definition of "worker," the Court acknowledged the need to prevent individuals from falsely claiming worker status to gain access to social security benefits without engaging in genuine economic activity. The Court articulated that activity must be "effective and genuine," thereby excluding activities that are purely marginal and ancillary. This qualification safeguards the integrity of the free movement provisions while ensuring that genuine workers, regardless of their income, are protected.

Levin's Lasting Influence on Free Movement Law

Levin remains a key case in free movement law. It has been cited in subsequent cases such as Lawrie-Blum (Case 66/85) and Steymann (Case 196/87), solidifying the broad definition of "worker" and providing further clarity on the concepts of genuine and effective economic activity. The Levin judgment serves as a precedent for ensuring that the right to free movement is not unduly restricted by national interpretations focusing solely on economic considerations. The case emphasizes that the fundamental principle of free movement requires member states to consider the totality of the employment relationship when determining worker status.

Conclusion

The ECJ's judgment in Levin offers a comprehensive interpretation of "worker" within the context of Article 45 TFEU. The ruling emphasizes the importance of genuine and effective economic activity as the defining characteristic of a worker, regardless of income levels or working hours. This broad definition ensures that part-time and low-paid workers are not excluded from the benefits of free movement within the European Union. By prioritizing the existence of an employment relationship over purely economic considerations, Levin affirms the fundamental principle of free movement as established within the Treaty framework. The judgment has consistently been applied and referred to in subsequent case law, ensuring a consistent application of free movement rights for all workers within the EU. The principle of effectiveness, as highlighted in Levin, serves as a necessary safeguard against abuse while maintaining the broad scope of protection afforded by Article 45 TFEU. The Levin judgment remains a critical precedent in EU law, guaranteeing that the right to free movement is accessible to all genuine workers, regardless of their economic circumstances. It shows the ECJ's commitment to ensuring the equitable application of EU law and supporting the development of a truly connected internal market.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal