Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium
A Member State cannot deport nationals of other Member States for conduct which, when engaged in by its own nationals, does not give rise to genuine and effective measures to combat it.
Facts
Ms Adoui and Ms Cornuaille, French nationals, worked as waitresses in a bar in Belgium which was suspected of being involved in prostitution. The Belgian authorities refused them residence permits on grounds of public policy, because of their conduct, although prostitution as such was not prohibited in Belgium, and Belgian nationals working in similar bars were not penalised.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that a Member State may not, by virtue of the public policy reservation, expel a national of another Member State from its territory or refuse him access to its territory by reason of conduct which, when attributable to the former state's own nationals, does not give rise to repressive measures or other genuine and effective measures intended to combat such conduct. The Belgian authorities could not rely on public policy to exclude the women for conduct that was tolerated when engaged in by Belgian nationals.
Related cases on free movement of workers
- Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 344/87, [1989] ECR 1621
- Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln Case 67/74, [1975] ECR 297
- Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Case C-138/02, [2004] ECR I-2703
- Commission v Belgium (Public service) Case 149/79, [1980] ECR 3881
- Groener v Minister for Education Case 379/87, [1989] ECR 3967
- Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 139/85, [1986] ECR 1741
- Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg Case C-19/92, [1993] ECR I-1663
- Lair v Universität Hannover Case 39/86, [1988] ECR 3161
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
