Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
A part time worker who needs to rely on social assistance to supplement his income is still a worker, as long as the work is effective and genuine.
Facts
Mr Kempf, a German national, worked as a part time music teacher in the Netherlands, giving 12 lessons a week. His income was so low that he received supplementary benefits from public funds. He was refused a residence permit, on the ground that he was not a worker, because he could not support himself from his earnings.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that Mr Kempf was a worker. It said that a person in effective and genuine part time employment cannot be excluded from the scope of the rules on free movement of workers merely because the remuneration he derives from it is below the minimum level of subsistence and he seeks to supplement it by other lawful means of subsistence. It is irrelevant whether those supplementary means are derived from property or from the employment of a member of his family, or from financial assistance drawn from the public funds of the host Member State.
Related cases on free movement of workers
- Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium Joined Cases 115/81 and 116/81, [1982] ECR 1665
- 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
- 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.
