Van Duyn v. Home Office case brief summary
Subject: movement of workers between member states
European Union Law
FACTS
The British government denied a Dutch national by the name of Yvonne Van Duyn an entry permit because she was affiliated with the Scientology religion.
The government believed that Scientology was socially harmful.
The Dutch national sued, citing the Treaty of Rome and Community law.
The case was referred to the European Court of Justice.
RULES
Art. 48 – freedom of movement of workers paragraph 3 has exception for public policy, public security, or public health.
-The fact that there’s an exception doesn’t mean that it can’t be directly effective limitations subject to judicial review.
-Impose a precise obligation which does not require the adoption of any further measure and which
leaves them, in relation to its implementation, no discretionary power.
HOLDING
-The Court ruled, under Article 48 of the ECC Treaty, that states are able to exclude a national from another state on public policy grounds based only on the personal conduct of that individual.
-In Van Duyn's case, her affiliation with a group (Scientology) could be considered as personal conduct.
-The Home secretary's eclusion order of the Plaintiff was allowed under community law because the UK had in the 1970s a public policy that aimed to prevent the spread of Scientology.
-This public policy was repealed in 1980 after a parliamentary review.
Subject: movement of workers between member states
European Union Law
FACTS
The British government denied a Dutch national by the name of Yvonne Van Duyn an entry permit because she was affiliated with the Scientology religion.
The government believed that Scientology was socially harmful.
The Dutch national sued, citing the Treaty of Rome and Community law.
The case was referred to the European Court of Justice.
RULES
Art. 48 – freedom of movement of workers paragraph 3 has exception for public policy, public security, or public health.
-The fact that there’s an exception doesn’t mean that it can’t be directly effective limitations subject to judicial review.
-Impose a precise obligation which does not require the adoption of any further measure and which
leaves them, in relation to its implementation, no discretionary power.
HOLDING
-The Court ruled, under Article 48 of the ECC Treaty, that states are able to exclude a national from another state on public policy grounds based only on the personal conduct of that individual.
-In Van Duyn's case, her affiliation with a group (Scientology) could be considered as personal conduct.
-The Home secretary's eclusion order of the Plaintiff was allowed under community law because the UK had in the 1970s a public policy that aimed to prevent the spread of Scientology.
-This public policy was repealed in 1980 after a parliamentary review.
No comments:
Post a Comment