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.
